Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCAMERA CORNER INC PUD PRELIMINARY AND FINAL - 34 92, A - CORRESPONDENCE - CITIZEN COMMUNICATION (2)PROSPECT/SHIELDS NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION 1000 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526-1926 Mr. Thomas Peterson, Director Planning Department City of Fort Collins 281 North College Avenue P.O. Box 580 Fort Collins, CO 80522-0580 MAY 28, 1992 Dear Tom: [E6�2 L�CE0WEP JUN ""I j 1 At a Neighborhood Meeting on May 19, our neighborhood learned the details of a proposal for a Planned Unit Development at 1110 West Prospect Road. Doug and Mary Donaldson own the property and he operates Colorado Camera Repair in his residence there. At present, the zoning on the property is RL zoning. Mr. Donaldson would now like to continue to operate his business at that location but no longer live there. He feels that the property is no longer suitable as a home for his family, partially because of intense automobile, motorcycle, and bicycle impacts at the Prospect/Shields intersection, but particularly because of the right-of-way the City of Fort Collins proposes to acquire on the property to carry out three Choices 95 projects. The improvements to Prospect Road between Shields Street and Taft Hill Road would require a not yet determined depth of the property along its entire Prospect frontage to widen the street. Improvements for traffic control at the intersection and north along Shields Street would require an additional, also uncertain, amount of right-of-way along the property's Shields frontage. Although the house on the property would likely have a remaining setback greater than many of the homes on Prospect Road or Shields Street, Mr. Donaldson believes that it would not be sufficient for the safety and well-being of his family. Part of the claimed hardship is due to the disability of one of his children and the young age of another. Since Donaldson's moving from the property as a residence would disqualify Colorado Camera Repair as a home occupation, continued operation of the business at that location would become a violation under the RL zoning. Under those circumstances, the Planning Department has advised Mr. Donaldson to apply for a PUD under the LDGS to cover not only the existing business, but an expansion of the business, and in addition a rental apartment. The Donaldson family have been "good neighbors" and active in some of the projects of our Association. We would regret losing them as residents of the neighborhood and miss the positive contributions they have made. We are sympathetic to their somewhat unique family situation and would like to find a satisfactory way to accomodate their concerns. However, the 0N Association must interpret the proposed PUD from a standpoint of its long-range effect on the neighborhood since, as we understand it, any approved PUD would not terminate with Mr. Donaldson's ownership and control but would be transferred to subsequent owners. The position of the Prospect/Shields Neighborhood Association on the proposed PUD is therefore as follows: 1. The Association is adamantly opposed to approval of any ongoing business use of the property beyond that permissible under the home occupation provisions of RL zoning, if such approval would extend beyond the present ownership. While we understand that it is possible to narrowly limit the kinds of business use that would be permissibl<> under a PUD, past experi^P.C-_ suggests that variations from those limits by subsequent owners might not be carefully monitored by the City and that the burden of legal enforcement could fall upon the neighborhood through laboriously documented and defended complaints. We are concerned that such complaints might, or might not, be supported by the City's administrative discretion in regard to alternative uses. 2. The Association postulates that approval of a commercial use PUD on the Donaldson property would make it difficult to deny similar approvals on adjacent properties. Thus, the way would be opened for strip commercial development along Shields Street in violation of historic efforts by the neighborhood and the City to retain the area's residential character and avoid the City's other strip development nightmares. 3. The Association would support a legally accountable means of allowing Mr. Donaldson to continue his camera repair business on the subject property while living off -site, provided he maintain direct oversight and responsibility and that this variance would end with his ownership and control and with any expansion of the business use beyond that permitted under the home occupation provisions of the RL zone. 4. The Donaldson family's circumstances notwithstanding, the Association considers that the proposed right-of- way taking represents no greater imposition on residential use than right-of-way infringements on many other neighborhood properties. Further, while traffic dangers and noise have increased significantly during the 8 or so years of Donaldson's ownership, they are not unique too this particular property. A number of our long-term residents have seen Shields Street and Prospect Road transformed from country lanes to major arterials. These owners could not have expected the eventual impact of development and traffic on their 9 3 property, but it could be argued that Mr. Donaldson might have anticipated these factors would become a problem for his family before he bought the property a relatively short time ago. In context, therefore, it seems that the personal burden is not a justifiable reason to authorize a more intense ongoing use of Mr. Donaldson's property unless the City is prepared to indemnify other owners at least equally harmed. Throughout its existence this Association, and individual residents earlier, have struggled to preserve the existing residential character of the Prospect/Shields area. The area's sensitivity to intrusive commercial development has been recognized and respected by numerous planning decisions in the past. Once begun, such development is nearly impossible to contain. Living conditions deteriorate, property values decline, absentee ownership predominates, and the neighborhood becomes physically and socially blighted, not only for its residents, but the City as a whole. Once more, we ask for the assistance of the Planning Department in avoiding any "opening wedge" that will lead to the destruction of our neighborhood's still viable residential character. Again, barring legal and administrative containment of commercial use of the property at 1110 West Prospect Road to the limited operation of the present owner, we oppose approval of any commercial PUD for this crucial property in our neighborhood. Sincerely, / i�?�Yh.%Kf� Emily Smith, Vice -President 1000 West Prospect Road Fort Collins, CO 80526 cc: hi=ste:, W1,-tstona Doug and Mary Donaldson