Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutROHRBACKER PUD - PRELIMINARY & FINAL - 41-89C - REPORTS - APPEAL TO CITY COUNCILAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY ITEM NUMBER: 18 DATE• September 18, 1990 FORT COLLINS CITY COUNCIL STAFF: Albertson -Clark SUBJECT: Appeal of the Final Decision of the Planning and Zoning Board on July 23, 1990, Approving the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan. RECOMMENDATION: Council should consider the appeal based upon the record, and after consideration, either uphold, overturn, or modify the decision of the Planning and Zoning Board. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 23, 1990 the Planning and Zoning Board approved the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan on a 3-2 vote, with conditions. On August 6, 1990, an appeal of that final decision was made for the appellants, Bill Wyatt for Thomas and Charlene Bassett, Richard DeCook, Harold S. Fisher, Ron Bauer, John Jervis, David P. Janssen, Marion T. Allen, Jr., David G. Joyce, Hayden H. Standiferd, John R. Valerius, Glen Tucker, Ross Rinker and Vern W. West. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT The Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan consists of a request for an auto salvage yard on 3.6 acres. The site is located at 1401 E. Magnolia Court, north of Highway 14 and west of Link Lane. Zoning of the site is C-Commercial, with a PUD condition. The applicant submitted a combined, preliminary and final plan; however, the Planning and Zoning Board only gave approval for the preliminary plan. The site presently contains a vacant office building, construction offices/storage area and a number of auto bodies being stored by the applicant. Storage of autos is presently an illegal use of the site. Action regarding the storage of autos on the site has not been taken, since the applicant is in the process of trying to resolve this matter via the City's PUD process. The proposed PUD plan was evaluated against the "Extraction, Salvage and Junk Yard Uses" Chart and the "All Development Criteria" Chart of the Land Development Guidance System. The three absolute criteria of the "Extraction, Salvage and Junk Yard Uses Chart" have been addressed by the proposed plan. The applicant is proposing perimeter fencing and landscaping at the site's entry to minimize visual impacts of the proposed auto salvage yard. Planning staff found the proposed project met the applicable "All Development" criteria of the Land Development Guidance System and that the proposed development was compatible with the surrounding area. On this basis, staff recommended approval of the Rohrbacker PUD. DATE: September 18, 1990 6TEM NUMBER: 18 The Planning and Zoning Board approved the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan on a 3-2 vote, with the following conditions: 1. No stacking of autos be permitted on the site. 2. Screening be provided to block views from adjacent properties along East Magnolia Court into the site. 3. A determination be made regarding where water to the west is coming from and where the proposed earthen berm should be placed. THE APPEAL The appellant has filed the appeal on the following grounds: 1. The Board abused its discretion, in that its decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record. 2. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. 3. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. These grounds of appeal are valid as set forth in Section 2-48 of the Code. SCOPE OF COUNCIL CONSIDERATION OF APPEALED PRELIMINARY The issues that the Council must resolve in this appeal are three -fold: 1. Did the Board abuse its discretion? 2. Did the Board fail to conduct a fair hearing in that: a. the Board ignored previously established rules of procedure? b. the Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading information? / e - City of Fort Collins Dev"nent Services Planning Department • MEMORANDUM DT: August 24, 1990 TO: Members of City Council , TH: James M. Davis, Directo 1. "'Development Services Tom Peterson, Direc pfi Planning FM: Sherry Albertson -Clark, Chief Planner RE: Staff Response to Appeal of Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan The following is a response to the issues specified in the Notice of Appeal filed on August 6, 1990 by the appellants on the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan. Please note the items that are direct citations from the Notice of Appeal. The staff response to each item is underlined. Also attached are relevant portions of Section 29-526 (the Land Development Guidance System) for your reference. The appellant alleges the following: 1. "The Board gave its preliminary approval by a vote of three "for" and two "against". T'hc approval was an abuse of discretion in that the Board's decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record." Staff Response: The Planning and Zoning Board did not abuse its discretion in voting 3-2 to approve the Rohrbacker PUD, Preliminary Plan. The Board found the proposed land use to be appropriate and that any concerns regarding mitigation of impacts would be resolved with the conditions of approval. 2. "The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. On March 26, 1990, the Board passed a proper motion to deny Case #41-89C, Rohrbacker PUD - Preliminary and Final. The Petitioner filed her propoticd appeal on the record. Subsequently, the Petitioner withdrew the tippeal and requested a rehearing, which was granted. This action constitutes an improper procedure and fails to follow previously established rules of procedure". Staff Response: The Planning and Zoning Board did not ignore_ prcviousl established rules of procedure. After the Board's March 26, 1990 denial of the Rohrbacker PUD an appeal was filed with the City Clerk's Office. The aopcllant later withdrew this appeal and submitted a new PUD application to the Planning Department. There was no rehearing requested by the applicant. The applicant by submitting a new application and plans and by paving the application fees requested a new hearing on a new project. The application and plans submitted were processed and reviewed as an entirely new plan. :'� 1 N. ( Ali ot, Ax-cmie • PA). 11w, �;80 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6750 Donald & Patricia Loos M.O. & Mary Morrison 1305 1st Street 'ottsbluff, NE 69361 E. Loraine Balland & Frank Salazar 2700 Aberdeen Ct. Fort Collins, CO 80525 Dan Eckles 1136 E. Stuart #4207 Fort CoTlins, CO 80525 Janice Merrill 1612 Germantown Court Fort Collins, CO 80526 Cencell, Inc. attn: Stephen Schovec 1999 Broadway, Ste #2100 Denver, CO 80202 '-'�.i rteen Seventeen East ,lberry Associates 1317 E. Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 W. Agnes Block c/o Harry Wolf 900 Greenfield St. Fort Collins, CO 80521 ELCO Water District 2325 S. Link Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 Larry Highland 2571 Hwy #66 Longmont, CO 80501 Springer -Fisher, Inc. 1240 E. Mulberry ,.art Collins, CO 80524 Thoma �, Mu SCJt.t':�n Thomas Mursphy III 8436 E. Via De Dorado Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Russ Sanford 125 S. Howes Fort Collins, CO 80521 Mrs. Rosalie Rohrbacher 430 W. Myrtle Fort Collins, CO 80521 Bill Wyatt 222 W. Magnolia Fort Collins, CO 80521 John Willox C/o Willox Wrecking Yard 938 W. Willox Fort Collins, CO 80521 Ross Rinker/Tucker/ 1424 E. Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 R. Rinker/Tucker/Valerius/ Standeferd 1424 E. Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 Richard DeCook 1418 E. Magnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 Harold S. Fisher 308 Camino Real Fort Collins, CO 80524 Ron Bauer 1404 E. Magnolia St. Fort Collins, CO 80524 a • The full seven -week review process was adhered to and an additional neighborhood information meeting was held prior to the Planning and "Zoning Board's hearing on this proposal. 3. "The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Pictures failed to present accurately the neighborhood. Elevations and visibility were not properly represented. Neighborhood impact was improperly represented." Staff Response The Board did not consider evidence that was substantially false or grossly misleading In making a decision to approve the Rohrbacker PUD Preliminary Plan the Board considered all information and evidence presented at the hearing on July 23 1990 including written documents prepared by staff the applicant and surrounding pro1)crtV o w n c r s w plans Submitted by the applicant, and slides submitted by the applicant. In voting to approve the Rohrbacker PUD Preliminary Plan the Board found the proposed land use to be appropriate and that concerns regarding mitigation of impacts (both visual and drainage impacts) would be resolved by the conditions of approval placed on the preliminary plan. • • 9 i I ACTIVITY : Extraction, Salvage and Junk Yard Uses DEFINITION 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.. CCITERIAEach of the following ap.pl i cabl a criteria must be answered "yes" and, implemented within the develop- ment plan. Yes No NA 1. Is the outdoor display and storage of vehicles at least 40 feet from ❑ ❑ any street R.O.W.? 2. Have all necessary precautions been taken to prevent all lubricant and fuel oil substances which are stored on the site, from leaking or draining into the groundwater system, streams, ❑ ❑ creeks, or other water bodies? 3. Are all hazardous materials to be stored in a safe manner? —28— J P��Illt SE r' i490 ! ' LOOS ELECTRIC SUPPLY 1404 E. MAGNOLIA FORT COLLINS, CO 80524 CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS RE: Appeal of Planning and Zoning Board Action on July 23, 1990. Regarding Rohrbacker PVD (case # 41-89C) Due to previous arrangements, I will be out of town on September 18, 1990. Please use this letter as my comments and concerns why the Planning and Zoning Boards decision should be overturned. Points that seemed to be overlooked: Location and view. Along a major entrance to the city. Area is growing in a positive direction. Operation of junk -salvage yard on both sides of a street. Neighborhood impact. Impact on the area: What will the site look like 5, 10, or 15 years from today? What other development will this hinder? Ground contamination'? False or misleading evidence presented: Pictures of neighbors dumpsters and backyard storage, hardly represents the area. Visibility from all areas and roadways. Number of local related businesses. Continuing operation at this location, without approval from the city or county. Sincerely, /GBauerot_� Manager �, i7:Z Council Mike Davis Tom Peterson Sherry AlbeSrtson-dClark ALLEN. ROGERS, AW8RLW V0AHRggENWALD ATTORNEYS AT LAW P. O. BOX 608 FORT COLLINS, COLORADO 80522 GARTH W. ROGERS THOMAS W. METCALF JACK 0.VAHRENWALD DONALD E. JOHNSON, JR. J. BRIAN MCMAHILL RUSSELL B.SANFORD ALLAN S. MASSEY VIA HAND DELIVERY � r SEP 171990 Y ' WILLIAM H. ALLEN OF COUNSEL 125 SOUTH HOWES, SUITE 1100 HOME FEDERAL BUILDING September 17 , 1990 TELEPHONE (303) 482-5058 P TELECOPIER (303) 482-5175 City Council City of Fort Collins 300 LaPorte Ave. Fort Collins, Colorado 80522-0580 Re: Rohrbacker P.U.D. Case No. 41-89C Hearing Scheduled for 9/18/90 Ladies and Gentlemen: We represent Mr. M.T. Allen, Jr. and Allen Plumbing and Heating, Inc. (collectively "Allen"), the owner and/or tenant of Lots 11, 17, 20 and 21 of the East Mulberry Subdivision. This letter documents the formal opposition of Allen to the proposed Rohrbacker P.U.D. which received preliminary approval at the July 23, 1990 Planning and Zoning Board Hearing. The approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Board should be reversed by the City Council for among the following reasons: 1. THE PROPOSED AUTO JUNK/SALVAGE YARD IS INCOMPATABLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND CONSTITUTES UNSOUND PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF FORT COLLINS AS A WHOLE. The Applicant has continually attempted to distinguish his proposed salvage yard from a "junk yard". It should be noted; however, that this distinction is without merit as the Land Development Guidance System (see LDGS Point Chart G) identifies the same planning concerns with respect to land use as a salvage or junk yard. The junk/salvage yard use is inconsistent with the commercial and light industrial uses in the neighborhood. Undeniably, the undesirable stigma associated with a junk/salvage yard is a reality which will adversely and permanently affect the property values of the neighborhood. Allowing a junk/salvage yard in this area not only to condemns the neighborhood to an undesirable and improper land use, but also such action would condemn the entire City of Fort Collins by allowing the existence of a junk/salvage yard at one of the principle transportation corridor to the City, h`ghway 14. Studies performed City Council September 17, 1990 Page 2 by organizations like the National Association of Industrial and Office Park Developers, unquestionably demonstrate that when larger companies select cities in which to establish their businesses, a major consideration is the appearance of the major transportation arteries into the city. The Rohrbacker P.U.D. proposes to build an eight foot walled fortress just off of the Highway 14 corridor. This plan is unacceptable. It is incumbent upon the City to improve, or at a minimum, retain the status quo of this corridor and not to depreciate and allow a decline of the Highway 14 corridor. Once the approval for a junk/salvage yard is given, it is more likely than not that the junk/salvage yard use will continue permanently and the City will not be able to reverse its decision in the future. The City should not make the same irreversibly poor planning decision made by cities like Laramie, Wyoming and Albuquerque, New Mexico with respect to the tainting of major transportation corridors. 2. ERRONEOUS EVIDENCE WAS RELIED UPON BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT ON JULY 23, 1990. In analyzing neighborhood compatibility, the Planning and Zoning Board considered the Collier/Slatten Property on Link Lane (Lots 8 and 9 East Mulberry Subdivision) as a precedent for auto salvage usage. This information was erroneous. Although auto salvage may be presently conducted from the Collier/Slatten Property, such usage is illegal and was specifically denied by the Larimer County Board of Adjustment on November 28, 1989. Instead, the Board of Adjustment allowed a special exception for the storage (and not salvage) of automobiles for a one year period only. This one year period was allowed so that the tenant utilizing the property (in a non -conforming manner for auto salvage and storage) could wind down his business and move to another site. The Board of Adjustment specifically stated that they did not, by the granting of a one-year special exception, desire that a precedent be set for the storage of immobile vehicles in the area in the future. However, in view of the tenants proposed short term use of the property for the storage of immobile vehicles, the Board of Adjustment was willing to allow • r City Council September 17, 1990 Page 3 the tenant one year for such usage. The use of the Collier/Slatten Property as precedent for allowing the Rohrbacker P.U.D., was exactly the type of precedent which the Larimer County Board of Adjustment desired to avoid. Additionally, as the Board of Adjustment specifically denied the right of auto salvage, such land use was inappropriately considered as precedent for neighborhood capability. 3. THE ROHRBACKER P.U.D. DOES NOT PRESENT A COHESIVE P.U.D. The Rohrbacker P.U.D. site proposes to fence in two separate portions of property separated by East Magnolia Court. Salvage operations would occur on both portions of the property over and across East Magnolia Court. Such use would create traffic problems, not to mention the visual detriment caused to East Magnolia Street and the future extension thereof. Such use does not constitute a cohesive Planned Unit Development as contemplated by the Land Guidance System. 4. ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS. Other opponents have voiced what appear to be legitimate environmental concerns respecting the Rohrbacker P.U.D. Allen is extremely concerned that these environmental problems, including unpredictable water run-off through the subject property and the effect of such run-off on the hazardous wastes thereon, cannot be properly prevented by the Applicant. Allen has not conducted any independent research with respect to this issue. In conclusion, M.T. Allen, Jr. and Allen Plumbing and Heating, Inc., request that the City Council of the City of Fort Collins reverse the preliminary approval granted by the Planning and Zoning Board and deny the Rohrbacker P.U.D. in view of the fact that the plan is incompatible with the neighborhood, incompatible with sound overall city planning City Council September 17, 1990 Page 4 in view of the detriment caused to a major transportation corridor of the City of Fort Collins, and because the P.U.D. is not cohesive as contemplated by the Land Development Guidance System. Very truly yours, Russell B. Sanford RBS/lkc cc: Allen Plumbing & Heating, Inc. M.T. Allen, Jr. 00c: Council Mike Davis Tom Peterson7arij�-,J! Sherry Albertson-Cl response pendingSEP 1 8 1990 Planning and Zoning Board and Council -��-- - �— CITY MANAGER September 16, 1990 To whom it may concern: I am personally opposed to the request for a used parts business by Rohrbacher PUD. My opposition is based not only on owning a well kept building in the area, previously called the "Safari," but a concern for the entire Ft. Collins community. I feel that Ft. Collins has been doing an excellent job of continuing to improve the aesthetics of the entire area, and a business of this type does not contribute to that effort. No matter what you call a business of this nature, or how it is referred to, it is still a "Junk Yard." To include such a business in an area that is doing its best to contribute to a good looking and enticing Ft. Collins is defeating the whole purpose of making any of Ft. Collins beautiful. Remember that if you allow this to happen, it will be impossible to evict this business in the future, and we wind up looking like the outskirts of Laramie. To beautify Ft. Collins you can't just dress up College Avenue, you must be concerned about the entire area. I don't personally know this fellow and he may well have good intentions (and free enterprise is important), but I feel this site is too close to the city, especially in an area that could someday be annexed into the city proper. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, Bob Swerer cc: Council 504 Enterprises, Inc. Mike Davis doing business as Tom Peterson A40� Sherry Albertson -Clark response ponse pending REAL ESTATE INVESTMENTS 215 West Oak, Suite 508 First National Tower Fort Collins, Colorado 80521 SEP 14 1990 (303) 484-4596 Ai ,. September 14, 1990 ` )" �/E.;rgi_� _,ri City Council of the City of Fort Collins 300 La Porte Avenue D @ V L3 P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80525-0580 SEp 18 i Ladies and Gentlemen, My wife and I are owners of property on East Olive Court, a short distance from the proposed Rohrbacker P.U.D. Due to other commitments, I will be unable to attend the appeal procedure on September 18, 1990. I'm sure you will review all of the previous documentation on this proposed use. You will find that we have consistently opposed this zoning and use because of the negative impact of the area. I hope you will sustain the original denial. It concerns me greatly that a junk yard would be approved in such close proximity to the main entry of the City of Fort Collins. The City including the Council, has more often than not displayed a double standard on matters involving the North portion of Fort Collins as opposed to the South. Please consider whether you would approve this use in close proximity of either Prospect Road or Harmony Road. Surely you recognize that this type of use will permanently denigrate the North entry to the City. Sincerely yours, R� r . Prenz ow t� / O ..`.J AUG 6 1990 NOTICE OF APPEAL C�.I.� C- i.RK 1. Date. August 1, 1990. 2. To. City Counsel, City of Fort Collins, State of Colorado. 3. Appellants. The persons executing this Notice of Appeal are the appellants as defined in Section 2-46, Code of the City of Fort Collins. 4. Standing to Appeal. The appellants standing to appeal are based on one or more of the following facts: They are a person who, or organization to which, the City mailed notice of the hearing of the Planning and Zoning Board; they sent comments to the Planning and Zoning Board prior to the action being appealed from; and/or they appeared before the Planning and Zoning Board at the hearing on the action being appealed from. 5. Action of the Board which is the Subject of the Appeal The Planning and Zoning Board, hereinafter 'hoard', action of July 23, 1990, giving preliminary approval to Rohrbacker PUD - Preliminary and Final, Case #41-89C. 6. Grounds for Appeal. The Board gave its preliminary approval by a vote of three "for" and two "against". The approval was an abuse of discretion in that the Board's decision was arbitrary and without the support of competent evidence in the record. The Board substantially ignored its previously established rules of procedure. On March 26, 1990, the Board passed a proper motion to deny Case #41-89C, Rohrbacker PUD - Preliminary and Final. The Petitioner filed her proposed appeal on the record. Subsequently, the Petitioner withdrew the appeal and requested a rehearing, which was granted. This action constitutes an improper procedure and fails to follow previously established rules of procedure. The Board considered evidence relevant to its findings which was substantially false or grossly misleading. Pictures failed to present accurately the neighborhood. Elevations and visibility were not properly represented. Neighborhood impact was improperly represented. • 7. Record on Appeal. Appellants respectively request, if available, the video tape recording of the Board's BW111-5 proceedings of March 26, 1990, and, July 23, 1990, to be provided to the City Counsel for review. APPELLANTS: 'Biltt- torrrey for TFiomas J assett and Char l a S. Bassett 222 est Magnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80521 (303) 84-1112 (/f_ ' Gy"t- Rich rd Decook 1418 East Magnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 484-0343 rold S. VrsMt 308 Camino Real Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 84-6384 Ron Bauer 1404 East Magnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 484-4333 r QEn rvis 18jEstMagnolia Street Fort Collins, CO 80524 ( 224-0222 "� j- '�- D vid P. Janss 319 B Link La Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 484-4320 Marion T. Allen, Jr. 101 South Link Lane Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 484-4841 - 2 - BW111-5 APPELLANTS (cont.) David G. Joyce 1300 NUa Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 (30 221-2428 !i Hay en . Standi r 1424 East Mulber Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 4 -3 6 Jdhn R. Vale ius 1424 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 493-3056j Tucker � 4 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 • (303) 493-3056 Ross Rinker� C 1424 East Mu'rry Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 493-3056 Vern W. West 1400 East Mulberry 1412 East Mulberry Fort Collins, CO 80524 (303) 493-1342 • - 3 - City Attorney City of Fort Collins M E M O R A N D U M DATE: August 7, 1990 TO: Wanda Krajicek, City Clerk ��/ FROM: W. Paul Eckman, Deputy City Attorneys ` RE: Notice of Appeal -- Rohrbacker P.U.D. I have examined the Notice of Appeal dated August 1, 1990, executed by Bill Wyatt, Thomas J. and Charleen S. Bassett, et al., and have found no obvious defects in form or substance. I would note that there are several signatory to the Notice of Appeal representing 1424 East Mulberry Street, which I believe is the Moose Lodge. WPE:whm 30O I—Worte Avenut' • 1' O. But 380 • Fort Collins, CU 80:;22-O580 • (303) 221-(,:;2O