Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 03-15 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84006 Applicant: Brookpark Dental Center Location: 6437 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Appeal The appellant seeks relief from a decision by the Planning and Inspection Depart- ment not to accept a site and building plan proposal which includes access to a commercial business through residential property. The Brookpark Dental Clinic is zoned C1 and is located at the southwest corner of 65th Avenue North and Brooklyn Boulevard. To the south of it is a nonconforming single-family residence owned by Mr. Richard Johnson who has received a special use permit to conduct a vacuum cleaner repair home occupation. Further to the south is an office building owned by Aaron Hoffman. The clinic has an off-site parking special use permit to use 20 of the parking stalls on the Hoffman site. The clinic wishes to expand at this time and can only do so if it provides parking stalls on the south side of the building. And such parking stalls would probably be unusable without an access being provided through Mr. Johnson's property (see plan attached) . Hence, the dilemma. The staff determination regarding this matter is set forth in a letter dated Februar; 24, 1984 (attached) . The staff position is that the proper course for the appellant to pursue is to acquire the Johnson residence to the south; seek a rezoning from R5 to Cl ; replat the existing site and the Johnson property into a single parcel , removing the existing residence and garage; and design a new site layout with one access off Brooklyn Boulevard. Staff have explained that access to a commercial use through residential property is nowhere permitted under the Zoning Ordinance and that such arrangements would undermine the basic purpose of zoning which is to protect property values by keeping different land uses separate from one another. Staff have received an unsigned letter from the appellant (attached) in which he/she briefly outlines the situation described- above and makes the point that a commercial access through residential property is nowhere specifically prohibited by the Zoning Ordinance. We must explain, in response to this point, that the City's Zoning Ordinance is exclusionary in the sense that uses which are not expressly permitted are prohibited. Section 35-110 states that: "Except as provided for in Section 35-111 , no building or premises may hereafter be used or occupied within a given land use district unless it is a permitted use in that district or unless it is author- ized as a special use. " (Section 35-111 relates to nonconforming uses existing at the time of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance) . Commercial access through residential property is nowhere listed as a permitted or special use in the Zoning Ordinance and it is contrary to the basic purpose of zoning. To approve such an arrangement in this case would erode the protection of residential property provided by the Zoning Ordinance. It may also be worthy to consider what the impact would be on the status of the nonconforming residence at 6421 Brooklyn .Boulevard if a commercial access were allowed across the property. The owner of the residence indicated his desire to have the property zoned C2 in 1973 when his home occupation permit was approved. The City, however, has riot encouraged such an action, but has indicated that a C1 zoning classification might be acceptable under the proper circumstances, namely the removal of the structure. 3--15-84 -1- Application No. 54006 continued We fear that, if the proposed access arrangement were approved, it would lead to the further commercialization of the existing residential structure rathe#r than its removal . The. value of the property for residential purposes would be diminished, while the - commercial value would be enhanced. This would probabl.y not lead to the eventual sale of the residence, but to itsconversion to a commerci use, contrary to the 1975 zoning action and to the recommendations of the updated Comprehensive Plan. More basic than the problems inherent in this case is the precedent that would be set by allowing commercial access through residential property. As we have previously stressed, such an arrangement would be an erosion of the very foundation of zoning: the separation of commercial from residential land uses. The impli- cations suggested above are not unlike the problems that would be created elsewhere if such -a precedent were established. We strongly recommend that this appeal be denied. 3-15-84 -2-