HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC84024 - 3/27/86 - 6142 Brooklyn BlvdU
PLANNING COMMISSION FILE CHECKLIST
File Purge Date: 3 1 `-
FILE INFORMATION
Planning Commission Application Number:
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Zoning:
PLAN REFERENCE
Note: If a plan was found in the file during the purge process, it was pulled for
consolidation of all plans. Identified below are the types of plans, if any, that were
consolidated.
• Site Plans
• Building Plans
• Other:
FILE REFERENCE
Note: The following documents were purged when this project file became inactive. We
have recorded the information necessary to retrieve the documents.
Document Type Date Range Location
Agendas: Planning Commission Office
Minutes: Planning Commission able l City Vault
Minutes: City Council ?-11- j1qy City Vault
Document Type Number Location
Resolutions: Planning Commission City Vault
Resolutions: City Council City Vault
Ordinances: City Council City Vault
CITY OF RPOOYI_Yll CFNTFR
'UN 1APPL_IC!" !ON
Application No. 84024
Please Print Clearly or Type
Street Location of Property (7 �'�� ,�c�e X_." ] f/
Legal Description of Property Lot 6, Block 3, Lawnridne Addition
Owner o /U .� � c+ .v e � e s L' � U >X_
Address I r / Ua Phone No.s^4 -9 x) 87
Applicant A/ � lq
Address
Type of Request: Rezoning
Variance
X_ Special Use Permit
Phone No.
Subdivision Approval
Site & Bldg. Plan Approval
Other:
Description of Request:, a �e ,�1 q�� J7jk Al -a ""Lf "7.5
jo o l/ ems-
The applicant requests processing of this application and agrees to pay to the City of
Brooklyn Center, within fifteen (15) days after mailing or delivery of the billing state-
ment, the actual costs incurred by the City for Engineering, Planning and Legal expenses
reasonably and necessarily required by the City for the processing of the application.
Such costs shall be in addition to the application fee described herein. Withdrawal of
the application shall not relieve the applicant of the obligation to pay costs incurred
prior to withdrawal.
Fee $ 50.00
Receipt No.
64572
Dates of P.C. Consideration:
Date:
PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION
Applicant s
gnature
Approved Denied 4 this -&-gday of 19 subject to the
following conditions:
09
rman
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Dates of Council Consideration:
v jJiis' p
Approved y� DZ ed ✓ this r_ZZLday of 19 with the following
amendment:
11 " Clerk
P/110'orm No. 18 (over please)
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 Rl 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 breaks 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 activity.
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 a residential dwelling
unit
7-26-84 -2-
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-