Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1984 07-26 PCP Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 84024 Applicant: Dr. John B. Lescault Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to expand the space devoted to a chiropractor's offices within the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded by Brooklyn Boulevard on the west, by 62nd Avenue North on the north, and by other single-family residences on the east and south. A chiropractor's office has been judged by the Commission in its discussion of June 14, 1984 to be a special home occupation. This determination was conveyed to the applicant in a letter dated June 26, 1984 (attached) . The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) and site survey and building plans describing the home occupation and the proposed addition. Dr. Lescault states that his hours of operation are from 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Friday with no hours Thursday or Saturday. He also states that he desires to bring in a nonresident employee who would be an intern from a local college. The rest of the information requested is contained in the site and building plans submmitted. The proposed additions include a 14' x 36' addition to the dwelling (14' x 23' 6" for the chiropractor offices and 14' x 12' 6" for a dining room) and a 14' x 26' deck along the east side of the house; also a 24' x 26' attached garage to the north side of the house. The use of the residence break.s down as follows: Dwelling Basement Office Garage Existing 989 1092 545 0 Proposed 1164 1092 874 624 The chiropractic offices are located at the south end of the residence in an area that was formerly a two-car attached garage. Access to the offices is presently from the west or Brooklyn Boulevard side of the property. The proposed plan would add a door and hallway to the east side. Dr. Lescault's letter indicates parking for four spaces. It should be noted that the four stalls do not meet ordinance requirements for stall size and driving lanes. Moreover, the parking requirement for 874 sq. ft. of medical space is six stalls rather than four. In addition, two spaces are required for the residential use. It is also questionable whether a six stall parking lot, meeting ordinance requirements for greenstrips, parking spaces and driving lanes can be provided on the site without eliminating the proposed garage or the granting of variances. The difficulty for this site in providing adequate parking space based on ordinance requirements can be construed as a failure to meet standard (d) of the Standards for Special Use Permits (attached) regarding ingress, egress and parking. It also has implications for standard ( e) regarding compliance with applicable regulations, inasmuchas the lack of required parking may well lead to on-street parking which is generally, though not totally, prohibited by Section 35-405 and 406 of the Zoning Ordinance (attached) . The only instances where on-street parking has been allowed have been home occupations for group instruction. Beauty shops and other operations similar to Dr. Lescault's have been required to have off-street parking. 7-26-84 -1- Application No. 84024 continued As to the other Standards for a Special Use Permit, staff have no concerns about standard (a) regarding public health, safety, morals or comfort. Neither does there seem to be an unacceptable impact on the use or value of neighboring property. As to standard (c) regarding the effect on the normal and orderly development of neighboring property, it must be noted that the surrounding lots are presently developed. However, the City's Comprehensive Plan recommends eventual conversion of this area to a service-office use. While the proposed expansion is to some extent consistent with that use, it also complicates the clearing of a minimum of one acre of land for an office use on a major thoroughfare. The expansion may, therefore, impede,; the redevelopment of this area. Aside from the Standards for a Special Use Permit, staff have serious reservations as to whether the home occupation, especially with the expansion, can be considered to fall. within the ordinance definition of a home occupation as "incidental and secondary to the residential use of the Dwelling Unit." Most home occupations involve the use of one room on the main floor or in the basement or half of a garage. The exist- ing home occupation involves five rooms and, with the expansion would involve seven. The existing home occupation involves 35.5% of the dwelling space on the main floor. With the expansion, it would occupy 42.9% of the dwelling space on the main floor. While the home occupation would not become the dominant use of space, we feel it could no longer be considered an incidental and secondary use within the dwelling unit. The companion Sign Ordinance variance application serves as a further con- firmation of this judgment. The Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance does not explicitly define what "incidental and secondary" means. It may be that some additional language should be added to Sections 35-405 and 35-406 clarifying the maximum space of permissible home occupation activit Some home occupations do involve considerable space in a basement area, but usually in one large room. It may be that a limit on square footage or percentage of floor area would be appropriate. Another method might simply limit the number of rooms devoted to a home occupation. In every case we can think of, two rooms would easily suffice. However, such a limit would make Dr. Lescault's operation nonconforming in its present status. Still , such a limit may be the simplest and most flexible standard to apply. The Commission may, of course, reject the suggestion of an ordinance clarification of "incidental and secondary" preferring to make a judgment on a case-by-case basis. Either way, we feel the line should be drawn, relative to the current situation, to allow no more than the existing home occupation. This is simply a case where a home occupation has grown to a point where it should find an appropriate commercial location. Our ordinance should not be construed- as encouraging home occupations, but rather as acknowledging and limiting them to being incidental to the residential use of property and tolerating them under certain specific conditions. In light of the above concerns, we do not recommend approval of the proposed expansion of the home occupation. The expansion of the residence, garage and deck are, however, permitted. There are other aspects of the special use permit which may be approved and we recommend consideration of the following findings, stipulations and conditions in conjunction with this application: 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 0 residential dvjclling unit Application No. 84024 continued d. the employment on the premises of one non-resident 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 home occupation use. 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. If the Commission is inclined to agree with the conclusions stated above, it might be procedurally more correct to request the drafting of a resolution outlining the facts in this case, recommended findings, and denial of the portion of the application involving the structural expansion of the home occupation. 7-26-84 -3- 1 Planning Conmi;sion Information Sheet Application No. 84025 Applicant: Dr.John Lescault Location: 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Sign Variance The applicant requests approval of a variance from Section 34-140 Subsection 3.C.1. to allow a 4' x 6 ' 24 sq. ft. illuminated sign for the chiropractor' s office in the residence at 6142 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Sign Ordinance allows home occupation signs to be no larger than 2.5 square feet. The property in question is zoned R1 and is bounded on the west by Brooklyn Boulevard, on the north by 62nd Avenue North, and on the east and south by single-family residential homes. This application pertains to the same home occupation addressed under Application No. 84024. The applicant has submitted a letter (attached) in which he makes his arguments as to why the variance should be granted. He states that a hardship exists because new patients generally continue down Brooklyn Boulevard to the dental professional building because they cannot see the sign and have to walk back up the street to the Lescault residence. He also states that the larger sign "would not be detri- mental to adjacent property owners and would be in good taste since Brooklyn Boulevard for all practical purposes is a commercial street." He adds that the sign would give his office exposure to passing traffic and that passersby would be able to remember the location in the event of future need of care. Variances from the Sign Ordinance may be granted when strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance would cause undue hardship because of circum- stances unique and distinctive to the specific property or use under consideration. The provisions of the ordinance, considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances related to the property or uses thereof must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or the applicant or a predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. A variance may be granted by the City Council after demon- stration by evidence that all of the following qualifications are met: 1. A particular hardship to the owner would result if the strict letter of the regulations were carried out 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land or the use thereof for which the variance is sought and are not common, generally to other property or uses thereof within the same zoning classification; 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property or improvements in the neighborhood. With respect to hardship, it is felt that the amount of signery permitted under the Sign Ordinance for home occupations is adequate and appropriate for the scale of operations envisioned by the Zoning Ordinance as permitted or special home occupations. It should be noted that Dr. Lescault has been in business for at least 8 years. Con- sidering his operation survives well enough on a four day week, it does not seem that the lack of signery has thus far resulted in undue hardship. 7-26-84 _1_ _A, Application No. 84025 continued The circumstances of this application - a home occupation on Brooklyn Boulevard are certainly not unique. There are a minimum of 8 home occupations on Brooklyn Boulevard and none have been granted a variance fora larger home occupation sign. Certainly all of these would have justification for a variance should this appli- cation be approved; and other home occupations on major thoroughfares or. collector streets would have equal right to a variance. In short, there are few home occupations for which equal or stronger arguments could not be made that a variance is justified. The Brooklyn Boulevard location, after all , is an advantage. Perhaps home occupations in quiet neighborhoods should be entitled to greater signery. A1- lowing greater signery to home occupations should be accomplished, if at all , through an ordinance amendment rather than by variance. We do not recommend any ordinance change. Limitations on this type of signery are as much a matter of community taste as a matter of protection of property values. With respect to detriment on neighboring properties, it should be borne in mind that a general lessening of controls on signs throughout the community could well lead to diminition of property values by lessening the residential character of neighborhoods. Although the neighborhood in question is not particularly residential , we feel the granting of a variance in this situation would eventually erode the protection of neighborhoods that are clearly residential . In light of the above, it is recommended that this application be denied on the grounds that the Standards for a Sign Variance are not met. 7-26-84 -2- Si Plannin�i C�,� r ; iori 1fIIf,;riii;3tiofI Sleet Application No. 84026 Applicant: Brookdale Covenant Church Location: 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard Request: Special Use Permit The applicant requests special use permit approval to conduct a Mediation, Recon- ciliation, Counseling service in the former parsonage on the Brookdale Covenant Church property at 5139 Brooklyn Boulevard. The church property is zoned R1 and is bounded on the south by Malmborg' s Greenhouse, on the northwest by Highway 100, and on the northeast by Brooklyn Boulevard. The old parsonage is at the southwest corner of the triangular church property. The proposed use, since it is on church property and is affiliated with the church is considered accessory to the church use, which is a special use in the R1 zone. The applicant's representative, Dean Nyquist, has submitted a letter (attached) addressing the Standards for a Special Use Permit contained in Section 35-220. Mr. Nyquist explains the proposed use as a way of meeting the need for professional counseling and making better use of the former parsonage. It is presently being used for Sunday school classes and youth activities. He notes that the Brooklyn Center Mediation Project and the Christian Conciliation Service address similar needs. Attached to the letter is a proposal for creating a Mediation, .Reconciliation and Counseling (MRC) center. Regarding the special use standards, Mr. Nyquist's letter states that the proposed use would add to the community and would not diminish property values in the neighborhood. He notes that the surrounding property is already developed and, therefore, the proposed use should not negatively affect the development of adjacent property. The applicant points out that more than adequate parking exists on the church property and that the MRC center would operate at times during the week when the church is not heavily used. The letter concludes by noting that handicapped clients can be accommodated at the church itself which is accessible to the handi- capped, but that the MRC center would not be remodeled for handicapped access. Staff see no real conflict with the special use standards. The proposed use seems to be an entirely appropriate reuse of this part of the church property. Our main concern is that the proposed use be connected to and consistent with the ministry of Brookdale Covenant Church. We would not recommend approval of a reuse of the premises that involved, for instance, law offices or accountants ' offices. In light of the non-profit, public-service nature of the MRC center and its affiliation with the church, we feel it can be comprehended within the R1 zone. A more com- mercial use of the property involving perhaps a subdivision of land, would have to be accompanied by a rezoning application to C1. That need not be considered in this case. In light of the above, approval is recommended on the grounds that the Standards for a Special Use Permit are met and 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. 7-26-84 1 1