HomeMy WebLinkAboutROHRBACKER PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 41-89C - DECISION - MINUTES/NOTESPLANNING 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 Georgiana 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, 017-90; Item 6 The Market at Horsetooth Commons PUD, Lot 2 - Amended Final, #96-81N.
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.
ROH BACKER PUD - Preliminary and Final. 041-119C
iMember 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 improvementf, 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. Uley 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.
-2-
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 S 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 neighborshad 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-
0
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 Iegal
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 Schauiin 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
did legally compel the
about the property. This property was annexed, but it not
but it was also clear that when it was annexed,
City to approve an auto salvage use,
were clearly stated to both the Planning and Zoning Board and the
the comments
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
reasonable
intergovernmental agreement between the City and County, the
expectation was that the use was not inappropriate for that site. They still had to
still
had to meet conditions, but it was not, per se, an
submit a PUD plan, they
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. tie 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
aim
happens to be the one who authored Larimer 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, Schautin, 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
0 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-
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, ate 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 1-25, 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 2(th Planning and Zoning
-14-
0 •
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 i0 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 look 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-
0 •
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 Larimer 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 staff's 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
027 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 Strove 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 Cottier 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 it54-87D
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-