Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMERA CORNER INC PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 34 92, A - REPORTS - RECOMMENDATION/REPORT W/ATTACHMENTSITEM NO. 13 MEETING DATE 7/27/92 STAFF Alh tsnn—.la k PLANNING AND ZONING BOARD STAFF REPORT PROJECT: Camera Corner Inc. PUD, Preliminary and Final- #34-92 APPLICANT: Doug and Mary Donaldson 1110 W. Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 OWNER: Same PROJECT DESCRIPTION: This is a request for a preliminary and final PUD to convert an existing single family residence and in -home occupation (camera repair and service) to a camera sales and service use, retaining a basement apartment. The site is located at 1110 West Prospect Road, at the northwest corner of Shields Street and Prospect Road. The property is zoned R-L, Low Density Residential. RECOMMENDATION: Denial EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant proposes a camera sales and service business in an existing single family residence and plans to retain a basement apartment for family use. The applicant currently operates the business as a home occupation and resides at this location. The applicant proposes to move out of the residence, relocate the business from the basement to the first floor, and convert the basement into a 2 bedroom apartment for family use. There are no exterior changes proposed. Existing residential scale wood signs on Shields and Prospect would remain. A maximum of 4 employees is being requested. The proposal is not supported by Point Chart E "Business Services Uses" nor Criterion #5 of the "All Development Criteria" of the LDGS. COMMUNITY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 281 N. College Ave. P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 (303) 221-b750 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY: Business Service Uses DEFINITION: Those activities which are predominantly retail, office, and service uses which would not qualify as or be a part of a neighborhood or commu- nity/regional shopping center. Uses include: retail shops; offices; per- sonal service shops; financial institutions; hotels/motels; medical clin- ics; health clubs; membership clubs; standard and fast-food restaurants; hospitals; mortuaries; indoor theatres; retail laundry and dry cleaning outlets; limited indoor recreation uses; small animal veterinary clinics; printing and newspaper offices; and, other uses which are of the same gen- eral character. CRITERIA Each of the following applicable criteria must be .answered "yes" and implemented within the develop- ment plan. Yes No 1. Does the project gain its primary vehicular access from a street other ❑ than South College Avenue? Mi 2. DOES THE PROJECT EARN AT LEAST 50% OF THE MAXIMUM POINTS AS CALCULATED "POINT THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA? El CHART E" FOR a. Is the activity contiguous to an existing transit route (not appli- cable for uses of less than 25,000 square feet GLA or with less than 25 employees) or located in the Central. Business District? b. Is the project located outside of the "South College Avenue Corri- dor?" c. Is the project contiguous to and functionally a part of a neighbor- hood or community/regional shopping center, an office or industrial park, located in the Central Business District or in the case of a single user, employ or,will employ a total of more than 100 full- time employees during a single 8-hour shift? d. Is the project on at least two acres of land or located in the Cen- tral Business District? continued — v] -22- continued e. Does the project contain two or more significant uses (such as retail, office, residential, hotel/motel, and recreation)? f. Is there direct vehicular and pedestrian access between on -site parking areas and adjacent existing or future off -site parking areas which contain more than ten (10) spaces? g • Does the activity reduce non-renewable energy. usage through the application of alternative energy systems or through energy conservation measures beyond those normally required by the Model Energy Code as adopted by the City? Refer to Appendix G for Energy Conservation Methods to use for calculating energy conservation points. h. Is the project located with at least 1/6th of its property boundary contiguous to existing urban development? i. If the site contains a building or place in which a historic event occurred, which has special public value because of notable archi- tecture, or is of cultural significance, does the project fulfill the following criteria. i. Prevent creation of influences adverse to its preservation; ii. Assure that new structures and uses will be in keeping with the character of the building or place. Imitation of .period styles should be avoided; and iii. Propose adaptive use of the building or place that will lead to its continuance, conservation and improvement in an appropriate manner while respecting the integrity of the neighborhood. -23- KA/HASed 1JWA /ZMP BUSINESS SERVICE USES POINT CHART E For All Criteria Applicable Criteria Only Criterion the Criterion Applicable Yes Circle me Correct Score Multiplier Points Earned Ixll Mcximum Appllcccle POW; a. Transit Route X 2 0 2 .111100 b. South College Corridor X 0 4 0 8 c. Part of Center X 2 3 0 6 d. Two Acres or More X 2 0 3 6 e. Mixed -Use © X 2• 3 0 6 f. Joint Parking 1 2 0 3 g. Energy Conservation 11213140 2 8 h. Contiguity X 0 0 5 10 i. Historic Preservation - 1 2 0 2 _ j. 1 2. 0 k, 1 2 0 I. 1 2 0 Totals �� y v vi Percentage Earned of Maximum Applicable Points V/VI = VII vu SUMMARY The following are QUESTIONS, CONCERNS, and RESPONSES expressed at a Neighborhood Meeting for Colorado Camera Repair PUD. The applicant currently operates a home occupation camera repair business in an existing house located at the northwest corner of Shields Street and Prospect Road. The applicant is proposing to vacate the residence and would like to continue the camera repair business at the site. The property is zoned RL, Low Density Residential. Business uses are not a "use by right" in this zone. The proposal would therefore be reviewed as a Planned Unit Development, and must meet the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. MEETING PLACE: Bennett Elementary School MEETING DATE: May 19, 1992 MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m. CITY PLANNER: Kirsten Whetstone COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, CONCERNS 1. What are the legal requirements that are filed with a PUD? What would a use description look like? What is the document which restricts the uses that would be allowed in a PUD?' Is it an actual physical document or is it the record of the Planning and Zoning Board meeting? A 24" by 36" mylar "PUD plan" is filed with the County and the City Clerk after a PUD is approved by the Planning and Zoning Board. This "PUD plan" is made up of a site and landscape plan; a vicinity map; a legal description; land use information; specific notes related to parking, number of employees, and number of dwelling units; a list of uses allowed; a list of uses specifically not allowed; information on signage and exterior lighting; etc. The minutes of the Planning and Zoning Board hearing record the official vote and spell out any special conditions which the Board has placed on the approval. This information is transferred to the mylar "PUD plan" before it is officially filed. Anything that is in the file, such as the staff report, also becomes part of the official record. In addition to the "PUD plan" there are often Utility plans, a subdivision plat, site and landscape covenants, development agreements between the City and the developer concerning public improvements, and any other documents which complete the PUD, such as traffic studies, drainage reports and soils reports. These are all legal requirements of the PUD. 2. 3. Why even have a business use in this location, when the property is.zoned for residential uses. The existing business use is categorized as a home occupation because it meets the specifications of a home occupation. We feel that the street widening projects will impact our residence. We feel it is not going to be a place for our family to live in the future. If we move out, then the business is no longer considered a home occupation. In order to continue to operate the business from this location, we have been told by the City that we have to submit a PUD. A business use can be allowed in a residential zone, provided it is part of a PUD, and provided that the PUD resolves conflicts with neighboring uses. We feel that we can resolve the conflicts and therefore we are proposing a PUD to allow us to continue to operate the Camera Repair Business at this site. What about finding another location for the in -home business? We feel that this location really works for us. It takes time to get established at any location. We have been here a number of years and people associate us with this corner. Also, we like the location and.we would like to stay there. We have an interest in the neighborhood too, we don't want to see a commercial interest take over the corner, if we have to leave. We think if we are forced to sell, it is unlikely that someone would buy the house to live in, especially after Prospect and Shields ,are fully widened. It is more likely that someone would turn it into a rental unit and it would go downhill, like the properties across the street. By having our business there, we would have a direct interest in maintaining the property, because we would be there every day. 4. Do you.plan to change the focus of the business? Any business evolves over time. I do mostly repairs now with some retail, as much as the home occupation law allows. Mostly, the business occupies the basement now. There is a small area on the main floor for a service counter. What we plan to do is move the business up to the main.floor and have the option of creating a two bedroom apartment in the basement. I envision doing more retail sales than we do now, but I couldn't really say how much more. The amount of floor area is limited, maybe 1000 square feet or less. Also we will always be limited by the amount of parking. If a potential customer can't find a place to park, they will drive on by. We want to be honest and up front on the PUD. We have been advised by the City to ask for approval for what we think we would realistically be doing on the property in the near future. . 5. Has parking been a problem with this home occupation business? No, not really. 6. That is a difficult and busy intersection. Will your proposal effect the operation of the intersection? I don't think so. We don't really see the business being that much busier, and we wouldn't be living there so some of our trips to and from the house would be eliminated. We would have to provide enough parking for the customers, employees, and possible tenants. The City has certain requirements for parking based on the square footage of the business and we would have to meet that. We don't propose to change the current access point, that would stay as is, until the City widening project comes along. 7. I think that the PUD opens the door to other business uses in this area, an area that is currently residential. Even if the Donaldsons' don't change the use, the PUD would, because it would allow business uses there. 8. It is important to us to maintain the residential character of the neighborhood. We want to prevent commercial uses from marching down Shields Street creating a strip of commercial development from Prospect to Elizabeth., or Laurel Street. It is important for us as well to maintain the residential character, we don't propose any changes to the exterior, or to any of the property. The City will be making the changes to the landscaping with the widening project. We propose to keep the residential character of the site and to continue to operate our business at the same time. 9. Will you have enough parking or will customers be parking along Prospect? We will have enough parking for the amount of retail floor area that we would have. But, we will check with the City's requirements to be sure. We would provide all of the parking on site, not along Prospect Road. 10. If this PUD is allowed, it would set a precedent for other people to get PUD's. The Planning Department would look more favorably on future PUD's because the neighboring properties would be PUD's and they would say they are compatible. This one PUD could unzip the neighborhood. But a PUD is much more restrictive than a zoning change. We would be on a short leash as far as what we could do. I assume it would all be spelled out on the PUD, including, the amount of floor area for retail, the number of employees, the number of residential units, and maybe even what color the housewould be. It isn't just a change in the Zone: Every other PUD would have restrictions as well. It seems to me that there would be a lot of control with these PUD's as to keeping the residential character while recognizing that home occupation type businesses could be compatible. 11. Our experience with violations to the requirements of the PUD's is that it is up to the neighborhood to file a complaint. The City doesn't go around checking for violations. Therefore, if this PUD is approved; we would have to keep track of what goes on there to make sure that the requirements aren't violated. It becomes the neighborhoods responsibility and that can really burden the neighborhood. 12. That seems unfair to the neighborhood. 13. There are violations to the Landmark PUD which the City has never corrected. Some landscaping that was supposed to be put in, never did get planted. We can check into that. Normally, before an owner is issued a certificate of occupancy (C.O.), the project planner and building inspector take a copy of the site and landscape plan out to the site and check to make sure that everything is done as shown on the plans. We do count bushes, shrubs, trees, and parking spaces among other things. If something is missing, we hold onto the C.O. until it is corrected. If a tree or shrub dies or is removed later, it is more difficult, but if it is called to our attention, we will look into it. 14. I don't have much confidence in the City's ability to police these PUD's that get approved all over town. 15. Would it be possible for the Donaldsons' to file a legal statement saying that they would agree to dissolve the PUD if they ever sold it? I suppose so, that is a legal matter between two private parties and the City would not be involved. 16. Can a PUD be dissolved with the sale of the property? The PUD is approved for the site. PUD approval goes with the property, it is not granted to individuals. PUD approval is not based on who owns the property. It is based on the criteria of the Land Development Guidance System. The assumption is that if the requirements of the PUD are sufficient to meet the criteria and to mitigate impacts on surrounding properties, then the PUD is allowed at that location, regardless of ownership. i7. The City has a moral responsibility for what is happening to innocent property owners. This is piece -meal development with no overall plan for the results. The Choices 95 projects were voted on by the people of Fort Collins, but there should be an overall plan in place for the consequences of those projects. Individuals should not have to go through this process when it is something the City (meaning the people of Fort Collins) have voted for. 18. I think there should be an overall plan for this neighborhood. Maybe the plan would show that this intersection project shouldn't happen at all. The improvement project still needs action by Council, it is not set in stone. Maybe this is the solution to the Donaldsons' dilemma. If the intersection were not being widened, then they wouldn't be asking for this PUD. 19. Can we check with the Zoning Department to see if there is some other way that the Donaldsons' can continue operating the home occupation business, but not live there? We can check into it, but the Zoning Board of Appeals does not grant variances to land use. That is why the PUD is being requested. It is the only way, except to ask for a rezoning, to permit this use at this location. 20. I don't want a PUD there. 21. I don't want a PUD that goes with the property. If it was just for the Donaldsons', then that would be fine. I have no objections to them continuing to operate their camera repair business there. I just don't want them to be able to sell the PUD to someone else who we don't know, who might not operate the place the same way. PROJECT: t"OLOe—A X rnEOR &PAie— TYPE OF MEETING: D1/sl6d&�oo1D p�fa2r�A7ivni DATE: —NMA,'-� i9, /99Z NAME ADDRESS WRITTEN NOTIFICATION YES/NO 0%''NER RENT : in 14. vWeAkit� N1j¢ Z.Ain (?tjpv J %✓ee C Alo E — V " o IC14 L 3'i xqE 0.ISos S.. SH)GLb5 ST Yf75 0I Iti IilO I S I � o air K siy-or, l Z w i �, �i-; �coM h No I 0 CAMERA CORNER, INC. 1110 West Prospect Fort Collins, CO 80526 ( 303 ) 221-4321 June 30, 1992 City of Fort Collins Planning Department Attn: Kirsten Whetstone Sherry Albertson -Clark 281 North College Avenue Fort Collins, CO 80524 RE: Camera Corner P.U.D. Dear Kirsten and Sherry? This letter is in response to your letter of June 23, and our meeting of June 25, 1992. We are requesting the Camera Corner P.U.D. based on the impact caused by the proposed City projects taking place in 1993 and 1994. The 1993 project includes the widening of Prospect, which will take approximately 18.5 feet from our front yard. The 1994 project includes the widening of Shields Street and the reconstruction of the intersection, which will remove about 18 feet from our Shields Street frontage. Final plans and figures are not yet agreed upon by the City. Thus, we will lose approximately 6,000 square feet from our property over the next 2 years. This is approximately 25% of the total land area that we now have. We believe these improvements transform our property to an unhealthy and undesirable place to live and raise a family. Over the years, the number of vehicles using Prospect and Shields in our area has risen to over 44,000 per day (12/91 count). As this number increases, the noise, pollution and accidents have increased and will continue to increase. It is noteworthy that these vehicles will be travelling less than 40 feet from our living room, dining room and bedrooms. The paragraph numbering corresponds with your letter. 1. See revised site plan. 2. Noted. 3. ' Negotiations are going on over paving the future parking area which will be constructed after Prospect Street is widen in 1993. 4. We have corrected the City's Vicinity Map. 5. See revised site plan. Camera Corner Inc. Preliminary and Final, #34-92 July 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 2 COMMENTS: 1. Background• The surrounding zoning and land uses are as follows: N: R-L; existing single family homes (Maxfield Subdivision) S: R-P; vacant E: R-L; existing single family homes (Woods ReSubdivision) W: R-L; existing single family homes (Maxfield Subdivision) This property was annexed into the City as part of the Maxfield Annexation in May of 1958. The property had been subdivided in the County with the Maxfield Subdivision in 1948 prior to annexation. The applicant has resided at the property and has operated a camera repair and service business, as a home occupation, since 1984. 2. Land Use• The proposed use consists of 1200 square feet of camera sales and service with a maximum of 4 employees to be located on the main floor of the house. Also proposed is a 1,200 square foot apartment in the basement for family members. The applicant plans to reside at another location and is proposing retail sales at this site. Therefore, a PUD is necessary to allow a business use in the R-L Zoning District. Home Occupations are permitted as accessory uses to residential land uses provided that: the use is conducted within the dwelling with no more than one other employee; the use must be clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling; the total floor area must not exceed one half of the floor area of the user's dwelling unit; only incidental sale of stocks, supplies or products may be conducted on the premises; the only exterior advertising permitted is identification of the home occupation; no exterior storage on the premises of material or equipment is permitted and off-street parking adequate to meet the needs created by the home occupation must be provided (see attached). The applicant has described his business as a low intensity retail and repair business, in terms of customers per day and number of trips generated per week. Past invoices and records show a daily average of 2.3 paying customers and another 2 or 3 non-paying customers, seeking consultation, for a total of 4 to 6 per day. The applicant has indicated that the business may increase by 30%, over the next 10 years. This would indicate an increase in 1 to 2 customers per day. City of Fort Collins Planning Department Attn: Kirsten Whetstone & Sherry Albertson -Clark June 30, 1992 Page 2 6. a. Of the upper 1200 square feet of the building, approximately 600 square feet will be used for retail, and 600 square feet will be used for service, rest room and storage. b. Although we would like a maximum of 4 employees on our payroll, we anticipate no more than 2 employees working at any one time with the possible exception of short peak periods (i.e., Christmas). C. The existing business averages 2.3 customers per day based on invoices. In addition, we provide free consultation services to 5 to 10 people per day who wish to purchase high quality photographic equipment. We would anticipate that at its maximum, the business would generate up to 20 trips per day. The existing residence already generates approximately 10 trips per day which will be eliminated by granting the P.U.D. d. One of the activities of the existing business is to provide free consultation for people interested in buying high quality photographic equipment. Upon conclusion of this consultation, these individuals have historically driven elsewhere to purchase these items. These extra drives would be eliminated with the inclusion of the proposed retail items. We anticipate 600 feet of retail space devoted to retail sale of this equipment. There will be approximately 600 square feet of space devoted to repair/service of photographic equipment. e. This is more comparable as to impact, to the dental practice on South Shields as to employees, architectural character of the building, traffic impacts, signage and hours of operations than larger scale camera stores which are located in the commercial areas of Fort Collins. f. The anticipated growth rate is slow to moderate, as we have no commercial lines of credit, expansion loans, or the like, or plans to secure the same. Our best estimate for growth would be approximately 30% in the next 2 years. 7. Hours of operation are planned to be Monday through Saturday, 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. City of Fort Collins Planning Department Attn: Kirsten Whetstone & Sherry Albertson -Clark June 30, 1992 Page 3 S. Please see revised site plan. We have revised our application to eliminate the residential unit. 9. We have revised our application to eliminate the residential unit. We are requesting a variance from the point system based on the hardship caused by the proposed City projects taking place in 1993 and 1994. The 1993 project includes the widening of Prospect, which will take approximately 18.5 feet from our front yard. The 1994 project includes the widening of Shields Street and the reconstruction of the intersection, which will remove about 18 feet from our Shields Street frontage. Final plans and figures are not yet agreed upon by the City but we will lose approximately 6,000 square feet of the 11,000 square feet comprising our front and side yard over the next 2 years. This is 55% of these areas and 25% of the total property area. We believe this makes our property an unhealthy and undesirable place to live and raise a family. 10. See the revised site plan. 11. Negotiations are going on over paving the future parking area which will be constructed after Prospect Street is widen in 1993. 12. The upper parking currently exists. We have temporarily stored 2 sheds in this area that are scheduled for removal. 13. See the revised site plan. 14. Please see future site plan indicating probable City reconstruction of the parking lot. 15. The revised site plan shows drainage arrows. We are not proposing any changes to existing surfaces as a result of this P.U.D. The City's capital project however, will result in paving extensive areas and they will be responsible for addressing drainage concerns which are far larger than anything that would occur on this site. This capital project is the reason are we are applying for this P.U.D. and therefore is the cause of all drainage impacts which may result from any future paving of any parking lot on our property. As such, we do not believe it is appropriate for us to pay a drainage impact fee. 16. We would not be requesting this commercial P.U.D., were it not for the Prospect/Shields widening which adversely affects our residential property. We are in a unique situation in that we are severely affected by 3 street projects. City of Fort Collins Planning Department Attn: Kirsten Whetstone & Sherry Albertson -Clark June 30, 1992 Page 4 According to the Goals and Objectives of the Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fort Collins (amended 3/90), under Economic Development/Commercial Development, it states: "Provide the opportunity for neighborhood scale goods and services at limited locations throughout the City. 1. Encourage development of some facilities and services at locations other than along College Avenue. (Emphasis added)." Our proposal is designed to allow us to continue our business without creating any significant changes on the site. We are maintaining the architectural character of our home; the existing limited signage, which is reflectively lit; all existing landscaping which is not required to be removed as a result of the City's projects, and the City's replacement of our parking. It is important to note that this requested change is a direct result, and in response to, the impact of the capital improvements initiated by the City. By: DRD:med Sincerely, CAMERA CORNER, INC. Douglas R. Donaldson, President Services Department City of Fort c:ollms July 2. 19.92 RE: Shields Street and Prospect Road Improvement Projects Dear Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association: A small group representing your association attended a meeting with the City Planning Department last week to discuss the proposed Camera Corner P.U.D. They questioned what stage the Prospect/Shields projects were in, what the schedule was, and was the -funding appropriated. The Prospect/Shields projects listed below are all Choices 95 Projects approved by the voters in 1989 to be funded with a 1/4 cent sales tax. I have enclosed a copy of the Choices 95 budget which shows these projects and what year the funds will be available. Prospect Road - Shields Street to Taft Hill Road and the Prospect Road / Taft Hill Road Intersection projects are in the preliminary design phase and the funds are appropriated. Council has reviewed and approved the scope of these two projects which will be constructed in 1993. Prospect Road / Shields Street Intersection is also in preliminary design and the funds will be available for construction in 1994. Shields Street - Prospect Road to Laurel Street is in conceptual design and the funds will be available for construction in 1994. Staff is still gathering input and evaluating alternatives for meeting the bicyclist and pedestrian needs. Staff has held three series of project open houses and will be holding more in the future for public input and review. We also are sending out project newsletters on a periodic basis to the adjacent property owners. We would be glad to add name to our mailing list, if interested please notify us. If you .have additional questions or concerns, please give me a call. Mark Sears, Project Manager 281 North. College Avenue • P.O. Box 580 • Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 • (303) 221-6605 Camera Corner Inc. Preliminary and Final, #34-92 July 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 3 The proposed land use was reviewed against the applicable point chart and the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan, as follows: A. Point Chart - Camera sales and service shops are defined as business service uses and are evaluated against the Business Service Uses Point Chart of the LDGS. The proposal for a business service use at this location does not meet the minimum required 50% on the Business Service Uses Point Chart. The proposed project scores 41%, receiving points for being out of the South College Corridor and for contiguity to existing development. Credit was not given for mixed use, since the criterion in the LDGS requires that there be "two or more significant uses". The proposed apartment is considered an accessory use to the business and not a "significant" use that would meet the intent of the mixed -use policy (ie. reducing impacts on the street and infrastructure system by encouraging combined trips and/or use of alternative transportation modes). The applicant has requested a variance to the absolute criteria that the project earn at least 50% of the maximum applicable points as calculated on the Business Service Uses Point Chart, on the basis of the hardship caused by the proposed City street improvement projects taking place in 1993 and 1994. The proposed street improvements reduce the existing lot area by approximately 6,000 square feet, or 25% of the site. The applicant also notes that the proposed PUD is a direct response to the street improvements planned at Prospect and Shields. The Planning and Zoning Board is empowered to grant variances to the provisions of the LDGS under the following circumstances: (1) The applicant demonstrates that the plan as submitted is equal to or better than such plan incorporating the provision for which a variance is requested; or (2) The strict application of any provision would result in peculiar and exceptional practical difficulties to, or exceptional and undue hardship upon, the owner of such property, provided that the variance may be granted without substantial detriment to the public good and without substantially impairing the purpose of this section. Staff does not believe there is an undue hardship placed on the property owner because of the proposed street improvement projects. Furthermore, granting such a variance may impair the purpose of the LDGS, by establishing a precedent for approving commercial land Camera Corner Inc. Preliminary and Final, #34-92 July 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 4 uses in residential neighborhoods. Therefore, staff does not support the variance request. B. Comprehensive Plan - Based on a review of the Goals and Objectives, an element of the Comprehensive Plan, staff does not believe that the proposed land use is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The Goals and Objectives document of the Comprehensive Plan states the following objectives for achieving preservation and development of unique qualities and characteristics of all neighborhoods: "Protect against the intrusion of incompatible commercial and business activities which have a significant negative impact upon predominantly residential areas." "Protect the character of new and existing residential neighborhoods against intrusive and disruptive surrounding development" and "Protect older residential areas from encroachment by industrial and commercial uses which may impact the viability of the residential neighborhood." These goals and objectives are intended to discourage the premature conversion of property to an inappropriate land use and to encourage the maintenance and stability of viable, older residential neighborhoods. The introduction of a commercial use, regardless of the scale or magnitude of the use, creates pressure for further conversion of other residential uses, threatening the viability of the area's continuation as a residential neighborhood. Impacts on a neighborhood are not measured by property ownership patterns, but by the existing and proposed land uses of that neighborhood. Based on a review of the Goals and Objectives, staff finds that the proposed plan is not in conformance with adopted City goals and objectives and does not meet Absolute Criterion #5 of the "All Development Criteria" of the LDGS, which asks "Is the development in accordance with the adopted elements of the Comprehensive Plan, including but not limited to: Master Street Plan and other adopted street polices; Open Space Plan and other adopted open space polices." Furthermore, staff believes that the introduction of a commercial use could be intrusive and disruptive to the adjacent residential neighborhood, establishing a precedent for other conversions to commercial uses in the area. Camera Corner Inc. Preliminary and Final, #34-92 July 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 5 The applicant has made every effort to limit the impacts of the proposed use, by restricting the square footage devoted to retail sales. The applicant also notes that moving the family's main residence from this site will essentially offset the increased traffic from retail customers. 3. Design: The existing home is a two level structure located at the northwest corner of Prospect Road and Shields Street. The proposed camera business would occupy the main level of the house. The total basement area, currently devoted to the existing in -home occupation, including storage, is approximately 1200 square feet. The applicant proposes to swap this area for 1200 square feet on the main floor and to convert the basement into an apartment. The entire lot is well landscaped with existing mature trees and the backyard is enclosed with a 6' high wooden fence. There is extensive mature landscaping around the perimeter, both on this lot and on adjacent lots, creating additional physical and visual barriers and screening. The landscaping provides good visual and noise buffers to the surrounding neighbors. There are no changes proposed to existing landscaping or to the exterior of the structure. The existing structure would remain residential in appearance. The applicant is requesting approval for a maximum of 4 employees, including himself. The applicant does not anticipate 4 employees on site at any one time, with the possible exception of the holiday season. A majority of the time there would not be more than two or three employees at any one time. As a home occupation, only one non-resident employee is permitted. Approximately ten parking spaces are available on the site currently. The site takes access off of Prospect Road. A lower gravel parking area is used primarily by customers. An upper gravel area, located to the rear of the building, is used by the applicant and would provide parking for employees and apartment tenants. When Prospect Road is widened, much of the lower parking area will no longer exist. A proposed future parking plan has been shown on the plans. Hours of operation would normally be from 9:00 am to 6:00 pm, Monday through Saturdays. Camera Corner Inc. Preliminary and Final, #34-92 July 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 6 4. Neighborhood Compatibility: A neighborhood meeting was held at Bennett Elementary School on May 19, 1992 (see attached minutes). The primary concern was the proposed land use. Those attending the meeting were concerned about the precedent that this PUD would have on future conversions to commercial uses, along Shields Street. The neighbors felt that this PUD could begin to change the character of their neighborhood. The neighborhood did not have concerns with the existing home occupation business at that location. The business has operated as an in -home occupation and, as such, has been compatible with the neighborhood at this location for the past nine years. with an in -home occupation, the primary use is residential and retail sales are not permitted. The proposed PUD is for a commercial or business use, which introduces retail sales at the site. The Prospect Shields Neighborhood Organization has proposed certain restrictions for the proposed PUD, under which, the PSNO supports the proposed PUD. The intent of these restrictions essentially retains the home occupation "character" of the commercial use at the site. 5. Transportation: The existing home is located at the northwest corner of Prospect Road and Shields Street. Access to the site is from Prospect Road, approximately 140 feet from the intersection. Both Prospect Road and Shields Street are arterial streets and the intersection is one of the busiest in the City. Access to and from the site is difficult at certain hours of the day. City parking guidelines indicate that a total of 8 spaces would be necessary to provide adequate parking for the business, employees, and tenants of the apartment. Low intensity retail and repair businesses generally need 1.5-3.0 spaces per 1000 square feet of retail space (3 spaces for the 1200 square feet); 2 spaces for each 3 employees (3 spaces for 4 employees); and a 2 bedroom apartment would require 1.75 spaces (2 spaces), for a total of eight spaces. It appears that the ten parking spaces at the site are adequate for this use. Prospect Road is scheduled to be widened in 1993 as one of the Choices 95 Capital Improvement projects. Approximately 20' of right-of-way will be required from the Prospect frontage for turn lanes and sidewalk. This project would delete several parking spaces and make the upper parking lot inaccessible because of the Camera Corner Inc. Preliminary and Final, #34-92 July 27, 1992 P & Z Meeting Page 7 steep, short grade which would result. The City Engineering Department has been working with the applicant to discuss the impacts and possible design solutions to mitigate them. The future road right-of-way and a future parking scenario have been shown on the plans for informational purposes. Shields Street is scheduled to be widened in 1994. The street design is not complete at this time. It is anticipated that between 13.5' and 19.5' of the Shields Street frontage will be acquired for right-of-way. The total affect of the proposed street improvement projects is that approximately 6,000 square feet (or 25%) of the site is lost to street right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION Although the applicant has made every effort to restrict the commercial element of the proposed PUD (thereby limiting potential impacts), staff finds that the proposed land use is not in conformance with the adopted Goals and Objectives of the City and that it is not in conformance with the Land Development Guidance System, in that it fails to satisfy Criterion #5 of the "All Development Criteria" and fails to satisfy Criterion #2 of the Business Services Use Point Chart, which requires that the project earn at least 50% of the maximum applicable points on the chart. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the Camera Corner Inc. PUD, Preliminary and Final, #34-92. ITEM: CAMERA CORNER INC PUD �/ Preliminary & Final NUMBER: 34.92 ALL DEVELOPMENT; NUMBERED CRITERIA CHART ALL CRITERIA APPLICABLE CRITERIA ONLY - CRITERION°°° Is the criterion aoolicable? Will the criterion be satisfied? If no, please explain ,e�F`' F� �F ves No NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATABILITY 1. Social Compatability 2. Neighborhood Character 3. Land Use Conflicts 4. Adverse Traffic Impact PLANS AND POLICIES 5. Comprehensive Plan PUBLIC FACILITIES & SAFETY 6. Street Caoacity - - 7. Utility Capacity 8. Design Standards 9. Emergency Access 10. Security Lighting 11. Water Hazards RESOURCE PROTECTION 12. Soils & Slooe Hazard 13. Significant Vegetation 14. Wildlife Habitat 15. Historical Landmark 16. Mineral Deposit 17. Eco-Sensitive Areas 18. Agricultural Lands ENVIRONMENTAL STANDARDS 19. Air Quality 20. Water Quality 21. Noise 22. Glare & Heat 23. Vibrations 24. Exterior Lighting 25. Sewages & Wastes SITE DESIGN 26. Community Organization 27. Site Organization 28. Natural Features 29. Energy Conservation 30.Shadows 31. Solar Access 32. Privacy 33. Open Space Arrangement 34. Building Height 35. Vehicular Movement 36. Vehicular Design 37. Parking 38. Active Recreational Areas IC 39. Private Outdoor Areas 40. Pedestrian Convenience X 41. Pedestrian Conflicts 42. landscaping/Open Areas 43. Landscaping/Buildings 44. Landscaping/Screening 45. Public Access 46. Signs Sc LAK aVQNT• x