Junk yard proposed at West/Ames

Junk Yard Proposed for Ames/West

LKQ of Tualatin, OR has proposed an auto salvage yard at the site of the former Taylor Instruments plant at the NW corner of Ames Street and West Avenue. The site is directly across the street from homes on West Avenue and Ames Street, as well as the Danforth Recreation Center and senior towers. The 19th Ward Community Assocation Executive Committee has discussed the issue and has expressed major concerns about the proposal. The issue will be discussed at the April Delegates’ Council meeting, and a decision will be made as to whether the 19th WCA will oppose the proposal. The Sector 4 Community Development Corporation is opposing the proposal, and the Dutchtown Neighborhood Association and Sector 3 are also raising concerns.

The proposed salvage yard would use the entire 14.5 acre site, and would take in end-of-life cars, dismantle them, and offer parts for sale to the public. The proposal calls for a 3,600 square foot sales building, a 14,100 square foot 3-sided building for auto dismantling and crushing, a 200-car parking lot for customers, and a 1300-car yard for storing cars that are to be dismantled. The storage yard would be surrounded by a utilitarian 8’ solid metal fence. LKQ estimates that the salvage yard would hire 18 employees.

Concerns have been raised that the tax revenue and jobs generated by the proposed salvage yard would be offset by the decline in property values on surrounding streets and the loss of marketability of commercial space on West Ave. The proposal would have a direct impact on homes on West Avenue and Ames Street, and it would be within the line of site of homes on Appleton, Somerset, Thorndale and Danforth. Ames Street is a gateway to the northern 19th Ward from I-490 and the Dutchtown neighborhood.

The 19th WCA welcomes the input from all members of the SW community on this issue.

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Marian Boutet on April 9, 2011 at 1:04pm

A junkyard with all of its attendant noise, visual pollution, and rodents living in the upholstery of the old cars across from two residential streets and a community center? Hmm. Let me think...

No, I DON'T THINK SO!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Georgia NeSmith on April 13, 2011 at 1:25am

This was brought up in the Yahoo discussion group three years ago:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the19thward/msearch?date=before&D...

It was roundly opposed then. So why is it even being brought up again?

[Note: people who aren't signed up with the Yahoo group won't be able to access the links]

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on April 13, 2011 at 7:56am

The proposal about 3-4 years ago was from a different company. The LKQ proposal is new, and even larger than the last proposal; it will occupy the entire site.

The first time that anyone in the neighborhood caught wind of the LKQ proposal was March 24. The 19th WCA didn't want to take a position until we had a chance to discuss it at the Executive Committee meeting last Thursday. We won't have a formal position until we discuss it at Delegates' Council this Thursday.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Margy Meath on April 13, 2011 at 12:21pm

the following is a 'cut and paste' of specific information re: this issue as per Councilman Dana Miller (thanks Dana!):

Margy asked about the approval process. Here are the steps.

1. Appliant approaches the City with a new use for a property.

2. City explains any restrictions, variances, special permits required (in this case a Special Permit is required).

3. City encourages applicant to meet with neighbors, neighborhood groups. etc..

4. Applicant applies for a Special Permit.

5. City sends out a notice to all property owners within a 500 foot radius, and neighborhood associations.

6. City Planning Commission holds a public hearing to have the applicant present their case, and then hear from people in favor, and people in opposition.

7. Planning Commission makes a decision that evening.

8. The decision of Planning Commission is final, but opposing parties can file an Article 78 to challenge the decision. This requires a lawyer and the last time the 19th Ward did it, the cost was $10,000.

9. Depending on the outcome of the court case the decision can be upheld or overturned.

This project is at step #3 right now, the City has encouraged the applicant to meet with neighbors and understand our concerns before going any further. When they do, they will try to convince us that it is a great project, and that they can mitigate any of our concerns.

Even if we have strenuous opposition, they are free to apply for a special permit, and at that point, official notices will be sent out, etc. As pointed out by DeWain, the super majority process allows us more clout at Planning Commission.

Dana

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Marian Boutet on April 13, 2011 at 8:25pm

It does beg the question, "Given that history, why is this proposal even being entertained by the City?"

Adding insult to injury is the fact that Taylor Instrument building that once stood on Ames Street was the company's headquarters and an architectural beauty. The handsome houses along West Avenue were the homes of some of its executives. To imagine the site reduced to a junkyard and the houses left to deteriorate even further would be a bitter pill indeed.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on April 13, 2011 at 10:38pm

Yes, the old Taylor Instruments plant was beautiful. It was a factory, and the site is zoned M1, but there is a huge difference between the positive impact that the Taylor plant had on the neighborhood and the devastating impact that a junk yard would have.

If Gleason Works on University Ave became contaminated and was torn down, I seriously, seriously doubt that City Hall would entertain the notion of allowing a junk yard on that site.

There is a double standard between how City Hall treats neighborhoods like the SE and Browncroft and the way that our neighborhood is treated.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Ken Maher on May 7, 2011 at 7:23pm

Thanks, DeWain. This is an illuminating comparison.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on May 3, 2011 at 8:11am

There will be a community meeting with LKQ tonight regarding this issue.

Tuesday, May 3
6 - 8 pm

St. Stephen's Church

350 Chili Avenue

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Wendy Sullivan on May 4, 2011 at 7:31am

The meeting last night was interesting but I was surprised at the lack of civility and the rudeness towards the LKQ presenter even after he said that he heard what folks were saying and believed the site would not be a good fit given the lack of public support. I had to leave the meeting soon after to facilitate a meditation session so I don't know the final outcome. I know folks have strong feelings but I wonder about if we are open to listening as well as speaking.

Now, don't get me wrong, I didn't and still don't like the proposed salvage yard, but when the company rep says that he's heard us and will look for another site, I think we need to acknowledge his readiness to change plans.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joan Roby-Davison on May 4, 2011 at 10:21am

Wendy - thanks for being there last night. Emotions were running very high at times, but I think the meeting ended with a note of civility. As soon as I know what the decision is regarding the proposal, I will post it here on Location 19.

My sense is that, while a few people did support the project, the overwhelming majority strongly opposed it - and that opposition is unlikely to go away. Regardless of the outcome, it is my intention to include 95 Ames Street in an application to NY State for a Brownfield Opportunity Area planning & study grant. If awarded, that would give community input into reuse, and ultimately may bring additional testing resources to assess the site. It might also make the location eligible for tax credits or other resources for additional remediation.

I will be contacting Mr. Forcum, LKQ, to again thank him for meeting with the community - it was at his request that we scheduled the meeting. I'll keep you (and neighbors) posted!

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by John Boutet on May 5, 2011 at 7:02am

Joan - There was some talk, after the meeting I think, that some parts of the the former Talyor Instruments land was not contaminated. I seem to recall that their buildings were set back from West Ave. If we look at the Google satellite view of the land, I suspect that the lighter pavement along the 200 foot deep stretch of pavement on the southern end of the paved over area may be the portion that was used for parking and is probably uncontaminated. Click the picture to enlarge:

If this is the case than whatever industrial use may be made of the contaminated area, we would be foolish to not make use of that land to improve porperty values and the quality of life for the neighbors to the south of West Ave. If the whole parcel is used for an industrial application, even if we clean it up, the best that the neighbors to the south of West Ave can hope for, view wise, is what LKQ proposed, a parking lot with trees around it with not much showing above an 8" fence. If the land is cleaned up, there will almost certainly be 2 or 3 story industrial buildings. They may be quite nice but it will still be an industrial park with a parking lot in front.

For the homes to the south of West Ave, the most valuable use that could be made of the 200 foot strip to the north is to build a classy row of townhouses that are designed to be a sight and sound buffer to whatever goes in behind them. They would be designed to optimize their view of the lovely houses to the south and not see whatever goes in to the north. Windows in the north wall would be glass block in a sound insulating wall. The south face would have 2nd and 3rd floor patios and picture windows. South facing roof would have solar panels. To minimize the number of driveways opening onto West Ave the Townhouses would have joint driveways leading to side by side garages that protrude from the townhouse front wall to provide a second floor patio.

Here is a possible elevation and lot view of two units:

If we superimpose that layout on the aerial view, 60 foot wide lots yield room for 10 townhouses with huge front yards.

We would want to have a variety of fronts to the townhouse to make them more interesting but this sure beats looking at a parking lot.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by DeWain Feller on May 5, 2011 at 7:43am

Yes, the portion of the site along West Avenue (the lighter grey in the aerial photo) was the parking lot of Taylor Instrument, and the diagrams that I have seen strongly suggest that it could be built on without further cleanup.

We should explore several development options, including the townhouse concept that you very nicely illustrated.

The old Taylor plant, even though it was a factory, was very attractive and interfaced well with the neighborhood. It was also surrounded by very attractive landscaping and a wrought iron fence.

All of this illustrates that the City of Rochester should overhaul its archaic zoning policies and learn from cities that have moved to Form Based Code. Good zoning can't be accomplished just by zoning parcels for certain uses (M-1, R-1, C-2, etc.), but rather by focusing on physical design. Older zoning focuses on "intensity of use" with the belief that less "intensity" is good for residential areas. The junk yard proposal would be low intesity, but it is still incompatible with residential use. John's townhouse concept would be moderately higher in "intensity of use", but it would be far better for the neighborhood.