Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 07-26 PCM 1111INUTFS OF THE PROCE!�-DI! GS OF THE PLANNING CorMISSION OF THE CITY OF PROOKLYr. CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HEN14EPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA STUDY SESSION JULY 26, 1984 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in study session and was called to order by Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson at 7:33 P.M. ROLL CALL Chairman Pro tem Nancy Manson, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Mary Simmons, Lowell Ainas, Carl Sandstrom, and Mike Nelson. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - JULY 12, 1984 Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to approve the minutes of the July 12, 1984 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioner Simmons. The motion passed. APPLICATION NOS. 84024 AND 84025 (Dr. John Lescault) Following the Chairman Pro tem's explanation, the Secretary introduced the first two items of business, a request for special use permit approval to expand an existing chiropractor's office home occupation at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard and a request for a variance from Section 34-140 of the Sign Ordinance to allow a 24 sq. ft. home occupation sign at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application Nos. 84024 and 84025 attached) . Commissioner Malecki noted the statement in the staff report regarding the requirement for a six stall parking lot and that these stalls meet ordinance requirements for size and driving lanes, etc. She stated that this sounded like the requirements applied to commercial developments and wondered whether such requirements applied to residential uses. The Secretary responded in the affirmative, noting that parking beyond what is located in a residential driveway would have to meet greenstrip requirements. He stated that the figure of six parking stalls was derived from using the medical formula for the space that would be devoted to the home occupation with the proposed expansion He noted that there was also a requirement for two additional stalls for the residential use for a total of eight parking spaces. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Dr. Lescault pointed out that a medical use is not usually a solo doctor and he questioned whether the City's ordinance formula for medical uses was an appropriate measure of his parking requirement. The Secretary pointed out that the ordinance formula is based on the floor area devoted to medical use. There followed a brief discussion regarding the stalls that are available on the site of the home occupation. Dr. Lescault stated that he was trying to conform to the handicapped code through his building addition and modifications. He explained that he owned the lot to the east of his residence, but added that he is not building his addition in order to expand his business. Regarding the Sign Variance application, he 7-26-84 -1- stated that the proposed size of the sign was simply based on an estimate given by a salesman and that he would be content with a somewhat smaller sign, as long as it was larger than 2 112 sq. ft. Dr. Lescault pointed out that he was recently unable to obtain an FHA or VA mortgage on his home because the property is not considered to be conducive to residential use. In response to a question from Chairman Pro tem Manson regarding the small room adjacent to the existing offices, Dr. Lescault explained that that space was presently used as an office for his wife who is his secretary. He explained that he wanted to make that room larger and make it into a handicapped accessible bathroom. Commissioner Simmons expressed concern regarding the home occupation. She stated that the existing home occupation already occupied more than 1/3 of the dwelling and that it would occupy even more with the expansion. Dr. Lescault questioned these percentages and there followed a brief discussion of the area devoted to the home occupation. Commissioner Simmons noted that Dr. Lescault would be adding an intern and that, with an additional person, he would be able to treat more people, generating more traffic, and increasing the commercial nature of the property. Dr. Lescault responded that it is important to train young doctors. He noted that he attends various schools around the country about one week out of every month. Commissioner Simmons pointed out that most of the proposed addition is for the home occupation and that Dr. Lescault is intending to increase the percentage of the dwelling devoted to the home occupation. Dr. Lescault stated that he was simply building to meet the need for space with his existing clientele, that he did not intend to bring in more business. Commissioner Sandstrom, noting that the Comprehensive Plan calls for eventual reuse of this area of the boulevard for office use, suggested that perhaps the expansion of this home occupation is a starting point in the conversion of this area to commercial use. The Secretary responded that the Comprehensive Plan specifically recommends that conversion to commercial use should not be accomplished through house conversions, but through the clearing of land, the assembling of parcels, and the building of larger commercial developments. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the acquisition costs of houses along Brooklyn Boulevard is too high. The Secretary agreed, but added that the proposed addition to Dr. Lescault's residence would simply add to those acquisition costs. He explained that the City did not rezone land along Brooklyn Boulevard to C1 when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted because the City wished to allow homes along the Boulevard to expand and not be subject to the full force of the nonconforming use section of the Zoning Ordinance. In response to another question from Commissioner Sandstrom, the Secretary explained that home occupations are to be a limited use of residential premises. He pointed out that residential districts are to be clearly residential in nature and that home occupations are tolerated as a limited commercial use within a residential district. The Secretary stated that the applicant, to some extent, wanted to have the best of both worlds, to be both commercial and residential. Commissioner Sandstrom argued that a controlled expansion of a home occupation on Brooklyn Boulevard was consistent with a conversion to commercial use in the future. The Secretary pointed out that a commercial use along a major thoroughfare must have a minimum of one acre of land and that Dr. Lescault's residence does not meet that requirement. Dr. Lescault pointed out that the one acre requirement came into effect after he had bought his residence. He explained that he has acquired one lot to the east of his residence. He stated that he did not think a conversion of the property would take 7-26-84 -2- place for another u or 9 years. The Secretary responded that the City is looking at the possibility of adopting a redevelopment policy which could possibly be geared toward, among other things, the acquisition of nonconforming homes along Brooklyn Boulevard and the preparation of land for commercial development. Dr. Lescault stated that he was not intending to expand, but wished to expand the structure in order to provide more comfort in his work environment. He added that he was not looking to acquire more land. Commissioner Simmons told Dr. Lescault that he was asking the Commission to allow the expansion of an already large home; occupation. She pointed out that there would be an additional employee and that more business would result. She pointed out that the letter accompanying the sign variance application indicated an interest in drawing more customers, not simply identifying the business. Dr. Lescault answered that he didn't know how to differentiate between those two functions. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that not all buildings are suited for medical uses. Commissioner Simmons answered that it was certainly possible to find office space somewhere for the chiropractic use. Commissioner Nelson stated that, without a plan for redevelopment, property owners were looking at the need to convert land to commercial use overnight through a complete change in the use of the property. He stated that this did not seem to be in line with reality. He suggested that the expansion of the home occupation could be considered as the beginning of a conversion to commercial use. He also noted that the Doctor does own the adjacent lot and could perhaps someday put together the one acre required. The Planning Assistant recommended against this approach. He stated that the ultimate conversion of the existing residence to a commercial use was too uncertain at this time and pointed out that the expansion of the dwelling might complicate such a conversion. He urged the Commission to look at the application as a home occupation in light of the City's ordinances regarding home occupations. He recommended that the Commission ignore the Brooklyn Boulevard location, noting that the existing situation does not conform with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan or the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance for commercial uses on Brooklyn Boulevard. He stressed that the property was still a single-family use in an R1 zone and must be treated as such until a redevelopment plan in accordance with City policy is presented. Chairman Pro tem Manson agreed that the application had to be considered in light of the ordinance requirements governing home occupations. Dr. Lescault stated that he would eventually have to sell the property and that it would be his problem if he made an expansion to the property which would make it difficult for him to sell. He explained that he could not sell the property for residential use since he could not get a mortgage through FHA or VA to use the property as a residence. Chairman Pro tem Manson acknowledged the point about private risk, but stated that the City would have to face the same type of questions in other neighborhoods that are clearly residential districts. PUBLIC HEARING (Application Nos. 84024 and 84025) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing on both the special use permit application and the sign variance application submitted by Dr. Lescault. She asked whether anyone present wished to speak on the application. Mr. Harold Schuller of 6136 Brooklyn Boulevard stated that he was concerned about how his property would be affected, but added that Dr. Lescault was an excellent 7-26-84 -3- neighbor. He stated he was much better off having Dr. Lescault next to him than a Burger King. Chairman Pro tem Manson asked whether anyone else wished to speak. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed. Commissioner Ainas stated that the Commission was faced with a situation where it could grant a special use permit for the home occupation, but that the expansion of the office portion of the dwelling would make it no longer an incidental and secondary use to the residential use of the premises. He recommended that the staff prepare a draft ordinance stipulating a maximum area in terms of square footage or in . terms of rooms which a home occupation can occupy within a dwelling. Commissioner Simmons and Malecki both agreed with the recommendation of Commissioner Ainas. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84024 (Dr. Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to recommend approval of Application No. 84024, subject to the following findings, conditions and considerations: 1. Special use permit approval is deemed necessary for the home occupation in question in light of the following factors: a. the extent of the home occupation use within the dwelling unit b. the level of traffic generated by the home occupation c. the use of equipment not normally found in a residential dwelling unit d. the employment on the premises of one nonresident employee 2. Special use permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 4. Special use permit approval acknowledges employment on the premises of not more than one nonresident employee. 5. A chemical fire extinguisher shall be installed in the area of the home occupation. 6. The hours of operation shall not be later than 6:00 p.m., with no hours on Sunday. 7. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off- street on improved space on the applicant's property. 8. Special use permit.approval acknowledges use of the five rooms in the southerly portion of the residence, an area of approximately 545 sq. ft. for the horne occupation use. 7-26-84 -4- 9. Special use permit approval specifically forbids the expansion of the dwelling or any accessory structure or use of other space than that outlined in Condition No. 8 above to be used for the home occupation on the grounds that such expansion of the use cannot be justified under the standards contained in Section 35-220 of the Zoning Ordinance. 10. Special use permit approval is exclusive of all signery which is subject to Chapter 34 of the City Ordinances. While the motion was on the floor, there was a discussion as to its implications. Commissioner Ainas explained that the motion would approve the home occupation as is with the addition of one outside employee, but that the expansion of space devoted to the home occupation would not be allowed. The Secretary further explained that the addition of a nonresident employee-to a home occupation requires an amendment to or a new special use permit. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. MOTION RECOMMENDING STUDY Commissioner Sandstrom then moved that the Commission recommend to the Council that there be a study of Brooklyn Boulevard to find ways of putting properties along the Boulevard to fuller and better use. The motion died for lack of a second. Regarding-the sign variance request, Commissioner Malecki asked how the limitation of 2.5 sq. ft. had come into effect. Commissioner Ainas explained that 2.5 sq. ft. is 18" x 20" and that this is the standard size for small commercial signs. Commissioner Malecki observed that there were 8 other home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard that were abiding by this provision of the Sign Ordinance. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84025 (Dr. Lescault) Motion by Commissioner Simmons seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend denial of Application No. 84025 on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Ordinance Variance were not met in this case. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 84026 (Brookdale Covenant Church) The Secretary then introduced the next item of business, a request for special use permit approval to operate a Mediation, Reconciliation and Counseling center in the former parsonage of the Brookdale Covenant Church at 5136 North Lilac Drive. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 84026 attached) . The Secretary explained that the Building Official had reviewed the premises and is satisfied that the structure is sturdy enough to meet the occupancy requirements for the proposed use. . He also noted that the file for this application contains a rough floor plan sketching out the rooms on the first floor containing offices for counseling. He also noted that staff have received a second letter regarding the application explaining that the Brooklyn Center Ministerium will not be on the Board of Directors of the center, but will have access to the facility. Chairman Pro tem Manson then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. 7-26-84 -5- Mr. Dwight Johnson, representing Brookdale Covenant Church, stated that he had nothing to add. Commissioner Simmons asked whether the MRC center would parallel other programs or whether it would be a coordinating and referral service. Mr. Johnson responded that the facility would be used by the Brooklyn Center Mediation project and the Christian Conciliation Service and by others involved in counseling. He explained that people would be referred to the center as a place where they could find help in resolving conflicts. Commissioner Simmons asked what the Brooklyn Center Ministerium was. Mr. Johnson responded that it consisted of all of the ministers from within the Brooklyn Center area. PUBLIC HEARING (Application No. 84026) Chairman Pro tem Manson then opened the meeting for a public hearing and asked whether anyone present wished to speak regarding the application. Hearing none, she called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Nelson to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. Commissioner Malecki recalled that the Youth Investment Foundation was denied a special use permit to locate in a house along Brooklyn Boulevard. She asked whether this was because of parking. The Secretary responded in the affirmative. Mayor Nyquist, who was also present representing Brookdale Covenant Church, noted that the YIF organization was not going to have anyone living on the premises and, therefore, could not be considered a home occupation. He also noted that the neighbors in the area objected to the proposed operation. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 84026 (Brookdale Covenant Church Motion by Commissioner Sandstrom seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend approval of Application No. 84026, subject to the following conditions: 1. Permit approval is subject to all applicable codes, ordinances, and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 2. The special use permit is issued to the applicant for a Mediation, Reconciliation and Counseling center use and is nontransferable. 3. Building permits are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 4. Special Use Permit approval acknowledges that the Mediation, Reconciliation, and Counseling center will not be operated . currently and/or in conflict with Brookdale Covenant Church services. Parking for the Mediation, Reconciliation and Counseling Center shall be off-street on space provided in the Brookdale Covenant Church parking lot. Voting in favor: Chairman Pro tem Manson, Commissioners Malecki, Simmons, Ainas, Sandstrom and Nelson. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Comission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission ajourned at 9:06 p.m. Chfl7rman Pro tem 7-26-84 -6-