Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 12-06 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION DECEMBER 6, 1979 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman , Hal Pierce at 8:37 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Lucht. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspections Ronald Warren, Superintendent of Engineering James Noska, and Planning Assistant Gary Shallcross. APPLICATION NO. 79067 (Marjorie Van Slyke) Following the Chairman's explanation, the first item of consideration was a special use permit application sought by Marjorie Van Sly.ke to operate a photo- graphy studio in her home at 4925 Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary pointed out that the house is surrounded by single family homes on the northwest and south, with the Twin Lake Alano Society located across Brooklyn Boulevard to the east. He explained that photography studios are defined as special home occupations in Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary noted that the applicant has submitted a letter requesting the special use permit in which she explains that she has recently completed a commercial photography program at North Hennepin Technical Center and will be photographing basically family portraits and weddings. One room in the basement will be utilized for the business and she proposes hours of operation as 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday. The Secretary also noted that the applicant intends to erect a 16" x 20" identification sign which is within Sigh Ordinance Standards for home occupations. The Secretary added that there is adequate parking space on the site. The Secretary stated that the premises have been reviewed by the Building Official who listed a number of items that he feels should be addressed such as: the need to keep the stairway area leading to the basement photography studio free of obstructions, the installation of a smoke detector, the need for a chemical fire extinguisher in the vicinity of the dark room, and removal and installation of various doors to provide better access to and egress from the photography studio. He stated that it is also recommended that a turn-around area be pro- vided so that cars do not have to back directly out onto,_Brooklyn Boulevard. The Secretary reminded the Commission that a condition for recommending approval of a home occupation is that it must be clearly incidental and secondary to the residential use of the premises. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. He asked if anyone was present to speak on the application. No one spoke relating to the application. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING tion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Lucht'. Voting against: none. The motion passed. 12-6-79 -1- Commissioner Theis stated that he felt this would be a good location for a hone occupation and also spoke in favor of the recommended turn-around provided it mgr_. ire, installed within one year. Commissioner tucht asked whether home occupations are reviewed annually as special uses. The Secretary answered that such uses were subject to staff review and possible review by the Planning Commission and City Council , but that a formal approval by the Council is not required on a year-to-year basis. The Secretary added that if the turn-around were not in=s stalled within a year the permit could be revoked or subject to further review by the Planning Commission and City Council. RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79067 (Marjorie Van Slyke) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend approval of Application No. 79067, a special use permit for a home occupation photography studio at 4925 Brooklyn Boulevard, subject to the following conditions: 1 . The special use permit is issued to the applicant as operator of the facility and is nontransferable. 2. The permit is subject to all applicable codes,- ordinances and regulations and any violation thereof shall be grounds for revocation. 3. The hours of operation shall be 12:00 noon to 8:00 p.m. Tuesday through Saturday. 4. The operation of the special use shall be on appointment only basis and not require more than two parking spaces at one time. 5. All parking associated with the home occupation shall be off-street on space provided by the applicant. 6. The stairway leading to the basement area shall be kept . free of all obstructions to provide safe public access and egress and contain a smoke detector. 7. The applicant shall provide a turn-around on her property so that cars will not have to back out directly onto Brooklyn Boulevard within one year following the approvai of this application. 8. The applicant shall provide a wall-mounted chemical type fire extinguisher as approved by the Fire Chief in the immediate area of the dark room. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Lucht. Voting- against: none. The motion passed. o APPLICATION NOS 79068 and 79069 (Howe, Inc.) - . The Secretary introduced the next item of business, a request by Howe, Inc. for site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 74' x 218' insulate' metal building to replace the building that was destroyed by fire on January E, .1979 at the Howe Fertilizer site. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposes to place the building in the exact same location as it existed prior to the fire, and that the building would be used for warehousing, storage of vehicles and equipment, and for maintenance operations (uses that were being conductea in the destroyed building at the time of the fire). 12-6-79 -2- The Secretary noted that the applicant proposes to equip the building with the automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance with ordinance requirements. The Secretary briefly reviewed the submitted site plan which indicates that i potential of 109 parkings spaces can be provided on the site. He added that the landscape and drainage plans show only the existing conditions with no proposed alterations . The floor plans, he said, show three principal activity areas for garage storage, warehousing and a maintenance shop, all divided with fire separations. The building would have two loading docks, he stated, one on the north end and the other on the east end. Various overhead doors would be located around the building to provide vehicle access. The Secretary explained that the applicant proposes no site alterations in con- junction with the plan approval , but instead is seeking variances from all the existing Zoning Ordinance requirements as they relate to replatting, curbing and drainage requirements, landscaping, parking and lighting provisions, and buffer requirements from the residential district and setback requirements. The Secretary then reviewed the variances in detail . He stated that Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance allows variances in instances where a strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance would create undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to an individual property under consideration and are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The provisions of the ordinance -considered in conjunction with . the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property must be the proximate cause of the hardship. Circumstances caused by the property owner or. his predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance according to the ordinance. The Secretary then reviewed the four Standards for a Variance required by the Zoning Ordinance: a. That there is a hardship(Z - b. That the conditions are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is being sought. c. The alleged hardship is related to requirements of the ordinance and has not been created by the owners of the property. d The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to public welfare or the surrounding neighborhood. The Secretary added that the City Council may impose conditions and restrictions so as to 'ensure compliance with the provisions of the ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties . The Secretary next reviewed a letter submitted outlining how they feel the Standards for a Variance are 1 . The ordinance contemplates only the development of an un- developed site and that an economic hardship results when 'these requirements are applied to this case. Also they contend the ordinance requirements create critical impediments to the conduct of the applicant's business. 12-6-79 -3-- 2. The situation and conditions are unique because it involves the replacement of a destroyed structure. 3. The hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance in that the complex is built under earlier City requirements and the previous structure did not comply with City Ordinances only because of changes in the ordinance made by the City. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. They noted that the two nearest residences to the west are owned by the applicant. 5. That Section 35-111 permits the continuance of nonconforming uses and since the applicant fits this condition, the variances should be allowed. The Secretary responded to each of the arguments for the variance. He stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not contemplate only the development of un- developed sites, but requires plan approval by the City Council before com- mencing with the construction or major alteration of a structure except one and two family dwellings and buildings accessory thereto. In conjunction with t"is plan approval , he stated, the Council may impose such conditions and restrictions deemed necessary to protect the public interest and to secure compliance with .the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. The Secretary pointed out that economic hardships, in and of themselves, have not been considered a hardship within the meaning of the Standards for Variances:-.': The Secretary stated that the destruction of the applicant's property by fire might be uncommon, but not necessarily unique. The City, he said, would have to deal with other similar situations in the same manner when considering recon struction of destroyed buildings and the application of Ordinance requirements. The Secretary maintained that even though the building was built under other ordinance requirements and does not conform with current provisions, an ordinance related hardship does not necessarily exist to provide justification to ignore all regulations which have come into being after that time. He stated that if the provisions and requirements of the ordinance can be met without depriving a property owner of a substantial investment, they need not be varied from. Regarding the argument that variances would not be detrimental to the public or injurious to neighboring properties, the Secretary noted that the Howe site has been deficient with respect to requirements designed to provide additional protection when industrial uses abut residential uses. He stated that a number of nuisance complaints have been registered regarding the Howe operation. He added that the fact that Howe owns two of the neighboring properties is irrelevent. The Zoning Ordinance makes no distinction on the basis of ownership. 12-6-79 -4- He explained that the ordinance requires certain protections in instances where residential property abuts residential industrial regardless of who the owner, happens to be. The Secretary then reviewed the specific sections of the Zoning Ordinance from wh•�ch the applicant is seeking a variance..and made various comments in the following manner: 1 . The requirement in Section 35-540 for the combination into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey of multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership. This requirement has been typically required when City Council approval is sought regarding unplatted or uncombined parcels. It is not felt that the Standards for Variance are met with respect to this request and the applicant has not demon- strated that a hardship exists if the requirement is met. 2: Curbing and drainage requirements contained in Section 35-710. Currently the City is awaiting the results of a study from Hickok and Associates regarding the need for modifying drainage and runoff requirements for land uses that store hazardous or toxic chemicals. It is not advisable to grant variances with respect to drainage, curbing and runoff requirements, but rather defer these requirements contingent upon the outcome of that study. 3. landscape plan requirements contained in Section 35-230 and also landscaping required in certain buffer areas. 4. Parking and lighting provisions contained in Sections 35-704 Subsection 3 and 35-712 respectively. 5. Buffer and setback requirements contained in Section 35-413 Subsection 1 where I-2 abuts R-1 at a property line. The ordinance provides that there shall be a protective strip not less than 100 feet in width where I-2 abuts R-1 , R-2, or R-3 at a property line. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveways, off-street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. 6. Building setbacks requirements from public right-of-way. The Secretary explained that the setbacks required for the . new structure would normally be 100 feet from the resi- dential property to the west, 50 feet from 49th Avenue North, and 10 feet from the east property line adjacent to Highway right-of-way since the right-of-way was created specifically to serve Howe, Inc. The Secretary next discussed the fact that the Planning Commission and City Council must make findings regarding the Howe site in addition to the two findings previously made. He noted that the City Council , based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, made the following two findings on May 14, 1979: 1 . That Howe, Inc. was valid use in 1946 and became a noncon- forming use under the City's Zoning Ordinance in 1957. 12-6-79 ' -5- 2. That the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 was part of the entire complex, that less than 60% of the complex was destroyed by fire and that, .therefore, the applicant is entitled to rebuild a similar warehouse on the site. Two additional findings must be made, he said, concerning the size of the building that could be rebuilt and the types of uses permitted in the building. -The Secretary explained that when Howe, Inc. became a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance in 1957, the size of the building was approximately 62' x 213' (13,500 square feet and 189,200 cubic feet). An addition, for which a building permit was issued with no supporting City Council approval , was made in 1961 which brought the building size to approximately 74' x 218' (16,200 square feet and 225,800 cubic feet) . He stated that the Planning Commission should make a recommended finding regarding the size of the building and the permitted use. He noted that the permits for the subject building issued prior to 1957 were approved for warehouse and storage only and did not include vehicle or equipment mainten ance which was being conducted in the building at the time of the fire. The Secretary stated that he could not recommend that all the variances be ap- proved in their entirety. Only those requirements in the ordinance that tend to conflict with one another as they relate to this site should be varied from, he said. In these cases, he explained, an ordinance related hardship does exist. He added that he felt that building setbacks and buffer requirements which provide protection for neighboring properties should take priority. The Secretary maintained that a building of approximately 13,000 square feet or a building approximately 16,200 square feet could be constructed and meet the various setback requirements. The Secretary showed on a transparency what the buildable area wound be for constructing such a building. He pointed out that a new 24' driving lane could be established between the new north building and the middle building to provide access from east to west on the site. He also pointed out that a 100 foot landscaped buffer strip could be provided immediately to the west of the proposed building. He stated that the 24' driving area should be bounded by B-612 curb and gutter to prohibit encroachment into this buffer area. Encroachment into the buffer area along the west property line immediately to the west of the middle and south buildings should be allowed for driving purposes and employee parking only. The Secretary stated that variances from some of the buffer and parking requirements could be recommended because to meet these requirements in total creates an ordinance-related hardship. He pointed out that these requirements, in effect, conflict with each other. - The Secretary stated that he felt that delineated parking for approximately 65 cars would be adequate parking for the site. He conditioned this recommendation by also recommending that employee parking be the only type of parking allowed on the west side of the site. No truck or vehicular parking should be allowed in this area. He stressed that all parking on the site should be delineated. The Secretary stated that the effect of granting certain variances would be consistent with the finding that Howe, Inc. is entitled to rebuild. He cautioned, however, that variances should only be authorized where the effect is minimal and where certain provisions and conditions are taken to minimize their impact. After recommending on each of the proposed variances and on the condition of .approval to the site plan, the Secretary commented that it has been discovered that an error exists on the site that seems to indicate that Howe, Inc. is using residentially zoned property at 3129- 49th Avenue North for industrial purposes. He pointed out that an 8' foot high fence was constructed about one and a half years ago, and that this fence is located approximately 25 to 30 feet northerly of the established zoning line. He pointed out that the area 12-6-79 -6- has been partially blacktopped by Howe, Inc. and is being used for industrial , rather than residential purposes. He explained that such an encroachment, if verified by field inspections, would constitute a Zoning Ordinance violation and that the fence should then be relocated to the zoning line and the resi- dential property rejuvenated. Commissioner Theis asked where the property line for the residence at 3129 - 49th Avenue North is located. The Secretary explained that there is no property line in the area of the fence. He,-explained that the zoning line splits the parcel on which the residence sits at roughly 150 feet south of 49th Avenue. There was a brief discussion as to how the Howe property got to be zoned as it presently is. The Planning Assistant recalled that the industrial zoning for the Howe site expanded along with the growth of the Howe operation during the 1950's and that the zoning lines around the Howe Fertilizer site have been roughly the same for approximately 20 years. In response to questions from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary outlined the buildable area on the Howe site which would be within current ordinance setbacks . He noted that a rectangular building of approximately 13,500 square feet could comfortably be accommodated in this space. Commissioner Lucht asked whether chemical storage would be allowed in the new structure. The Secretary answered that it would be allowed. In answer to Commissioner Manson, the Secretary explained that parking is not allowed by the ordinance in the 100 foot protective buffer strip between industrial and residential uses and that, therefore, a variance would be required to allow parking in that area. Commissioner Theis commented that he did not see any additional landscaping and questioned whether the large elm trees along the north edge of the site would be viable for any length of time. The Secretary agreed and noted that plantings on the residential properties to the west do not count towards the landscaping provisions for the industrial site. The Secretary explained that the staff had looked at the site plan proposed by the applicant and the accompanying variances and had prioritized the variances requested. He stated that a first priority was the setback of the building from property lines. The second priority was the buffer areas, that they contain as little activity as possible. The third priority was to meet necessary parking requirements. Commissioner Theis asked whether the permits issued in the 1950's and 1960's were Council approved or administratively approved. The Secretary answered that approvals for additions to the previous building in 1955 and. 1956 were granted by the City Council . With respect to the addition to the building in 1961 , he explained that no record exists indicating it was approved by the City Council , and apparently the permit was issued administratively. He stated that he felt the 1961 addition should have been reviewed by the City Council since other additions had been and also because Howe, Inc. had become a nonconforming use in 1957. Chairman Pierce called on the applicant to speak on behalf of the proposal . Mr. James Russell , .Attorney for Howe, Inc., commented briefly on the Secretary's presentation. As to the size of the building, he said, it was built in three stages in 1955, 1956, and 1961 . He argued that the building was 74' x 218' at the time of the fire and that that size was approved over time as indicated by various permits of which the City has a record. As to the use of the building, Mr. Russell stated that he did not understand the attempt to limit the use to storage and warehousing. He stated that the original building in. 1955 was used for maintenance and that this use continued from the very begin- ning. He commented that storage was a use that was introduced later and yet 12-6-79 -7- ., is recognized now as an approved use. Citing Sec"t. on 35-111 he stated that a nonconforming use may be extended throughout the .building, or as has been in- terpreted, throughout the complex. This function, he said, could have gone on in one of the other buildings and been expanded to the north building which was burned: Mr. Russell stated that he did not agree that an economic hardship is not con- ' templated by the variance standards in the Zoning Ordinance. He acknowledged that an economic hardship must be extreme, that it must in effect deny the use of the property. He explained that Howe, Inc. has already suffered a hardship from the fire. He complained that the City is now imposing all sorts of addi- tional requirements. He asked what was the good of platting besides enriching some surveyor. He considered it unjust that because 20% of the complex was lost, all of the site must be curbed. As to creating a buffer area, he stated that the northwest portion of the site had always been used and that to turn this into a buffer area would amount to denying the use of property. Summing these things up, Mr. Russell argued that there exists a cumulative "hardship" that when the loss from the fire is added to these requirements, the cost of rebuilding is prohibitive. He stated that Section 35-111 allows the rebuilding of a noncon- forming use. He contended that this provision allows the rebuilding of a non- conforming use without being brought into compliance with existing ordinance requirements. -He stated that if the City could not impose these requirements before the building burned down, it had no right to impose the requirements after the building burned down. Commissioner Theis observed that what Mr. Russell is requesting is the right to rebuild an identical building without providing any improvements to the Howe Fertilizer site. Mr. Russell agreed, but added that the building itself would be much better than the previous building, that it would meet current building code requirements. Commissioner Lucht observed that the right to rebuild the structure as a non- conforming use was based on its being considered part of a complex. If it is the complex, therefore, which is being restored, should not the entire complex be subject to plan approval? Mr. Russell responded that the Zoning Ordinance did not comprehend the complete overhaul of the site required by the City. Tom Howe stated that if all ordinance requirements were to be met, parts of the two south buildings would have to be sheared off. Commissioner Lucht clarified that only the new building would have to meet current requirements and that other areas .would be brought into compliance only where possible. Commissioner Theis asked whether curbing would be required along the 24 foot driving lane. The Secretary answered that curbing would be required in this area to prevent driving into the buffer area and also to control to some extent, the drainage of the site which will be subject to the recommendations of the Hickok Study. The Superintendent of Engineering stated that the Hickok Study was expected soon. Mr. Russell asked the Planning Commission to take some action on the matter at this evening's meeting rather than defer it. The Secretary asked what the appli- cant's objections were to the staff's recommendation. Mr. Russell answered that staff is assuming that there is excess land available on the site for the purpose of providing a buffer. He questioned whether a truck could be backed into the building area outlined by staff from a 24 foot driving lane. He stated that the City Manager has acknowledged that the Howe site is crowded and Mr. Russell maintained that there was simply no excess land to be given up for buffer space. 12-6-79 -8 The Secretary pointed out that the shaded area on the transparency indicates the buildable space on the Howe site. He noted that a new building would not encompass that entire area and that much of it could be used for driving and loading areas. He added that some of the buffer requirements could be met. Mr. Bill Kranz, the builder for the applicant, asked whether the 10' setback . area along the east portion of the site could be driven over. The Secretary responded that it could. In response to a question from Commissioner Theis regarding drainage requirements and recommendations of the Hickok Study, the Secretary stated that the City is awaiting the results of that study which relates to the need for modifying drainage and runoff requirements for land uses that store hazardous or toxic chemicals. He added that it is not advisable to grant variances in conjunction with this site plan regarding drainage, curbing and runoff control requirements, but rather defer them contingent upon the outcome of the study. He added that a condition of any variance might be that Howe will comply with any new requirements. PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Leo Hanson, o-' 4903 Brooklyn Boulevard, addressed the Commission and stated that the neighbors adjacent to the Howe site are the ones that are suffering the hardship. He stated that the residents had lost their lawns and have had to pay lawyers to try to get them restored and have had to put up with dust and fumes and noise for many years. He complained that the Howe operation has gotten bigger and bigger over the years, having a greater impact-. on the surrounding neighborhood. Mr. Hanson complained bitterly about the ammonia fumes which have more than once burner: out the lawns and gardens in the neighborhood. He asked why Howe Fertilizer can be allowed to spew forth their noxious fumes while the residents in the surround- ing neighborhood cannot even burn their trash. He concluded his remarks by saving that he felt betrayed by the City and commented that he has fought 28 years against Howe Fertilizer for nothing. In answer to a question from Commissioner Theis, Mr. Hanson stated that the Howes did not have a building permit to con-, struct the addition in 1961 until after he called the City to alert them about what was going on. Mrs. Murto, of 3205 - 49th Avenue North, pointed out that there is a serious drainage problem at the southeast corner of the Howe site. An undentified man in the audience stated that the damage to surrounding lawns as a result of the atrazine has been estimated at $2,500.00 for one lot, $3,500.00 for another and $1 ,600.00 for another. He stated that the residents in the neighborhood waited for Mr. Howe to approach them about paying for the damage, but that they finally had to get a lawyer to sue the Howes to get any compensation. Mr. Arnold Murto, of 3205 - 49th Avenue North recommended that the variances be denied in the home that the Howe Fertilizer would move elsewhere. Mrs. Murto asked why the temporary building was still standing. The Secretary answered that it has been ordered down by the City some months ago, but that the matter was appealed to the State Building Codes Division and no final decision has been given by that agency. Mary Dodds, of 4730 Xerxes Avenue North,complained that her car which has to sit outside, is being corroded by exhaust from Howe Fertilizer. She said that the Howes once offered to buy her out, but that she fought off the attempt. And yet, since then the operation has grown like a cancer. She complained about the dust blowing into Minneapolis across the railroad tracks from the Howe site, and she asked why Howe Fertilizer should be allowed to build in a buffer zone ashen normal residents cannot get a variance to do just such a thing. 12-6-79 -9- The Secretary referred to the City's recently adopted Phase-out Ordinance con- cerning Howe Fertilizer. He explained that the phase-out pertains to the manufacture aspect of the fertilizer operation and not necessarily to the ware- housing and storage uses on the site. He stated that the ordinance would phase out the manufacturing operation by 1982. As to the pollution problem, the Secretary stated that Howe, Inc. has entered into a stipulation agreement with the Pollution Control Agency and that modifications have been made to their vent stack and that the PCA has indicated that the omissions meet their standards. He added that the City has cited Howe on two occasions for violating the City's Nuisance Ordinance regarding odors and that these matters are pending in court. Mr. Leo Hanson inquired whether there was any ordinance regulating welding, whether it could be done outside. or 'not. The Secretary answered that welding could be performed outside as far as he was aware. Mr. Hanson complained that it is a dangerous thing, is regulated in Minneapolis, and should be regulated in Brooklyn Center. Mr. Murto, 3205 - 49th Avenue North, complained about noise at 5:00 to 6:00 a.m. The Secretary answered that the City's Nuisance Ordinance and Zoning Ordinance forbid noise from any operation to be perceptable beyond the premises on which it originates. He explained, however, that a violator must be caught in the act and suggested that Mr. Murto notify the City when a violation was in progress. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Chairman Pierce asked whether anyone else had comments concerning the appli- cation before the Planning Commission. No one else spoke. There was_a motion by Commissioner Theis seconded by Commissioner Lucht to close the public hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson, and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. Commissioner Manson asked what uses on the Howe site were permitted originally. The Secretary answered that the approvals in 1955 and 1956 allowed warehousing and storage, but not maintenance of equipment. He stated that if such a use started before 1961 ,it was a zoning violation. The Secretary stated that the City Attorney has recommended making certain additional findings concerning the Howe site. He also explained that the expansion of the nonconforming use at Howe Fertilizer would be forbidden on the basis of volume, as well as area, of the new building. Chairman Pierce asked whether Howe Fertilizer would continue to be a nonconforming use after 1982 if the manufacturing aspect of the operation was done away with. The Secretary answered that it would not be nonconforming as to use, but that the structures would still be nonconforming as to setback. The Secretary also stated that the fact that the applicant has to spend money to meet ordinance requirements is not considered an ordinance-related hardship.. The Secretary argued that a hardship exists where ordinance requirements in effect deny the use of the property. He added that is is felt that a hardship would also exist where various ordinance requirements conflict in such a way that they cannot all be met and still allow the building to be rebuilt. Regarding the size and use of the building, Commissioner Lucht stated that he felt a 16,200 square foot building should be allowed because the City had, in effect, authorized such a building by its 1`961 building permit. He stated that he would also acknowledge the uses of warehousing, storage and maintenance since -these uses had been in existence at the time of the fire. 12-6-79 -10- Commissioner Theis asked what uses were permitted on the 1955 and 1956 permits. The Secretary stated that warehousing and storage was cited in the approvals for the first two portions of the north building and that nothing allowing vehicle maintenance was contained in those approvals. Commissioner Theis asked whether vehicle maintenance was allowed in the I-2 zone generally. The Secretary re- sponded that it is. Commissioner Manson concurred with Commissioner Lucht in recommending a 16,200 square foot, 225,000 cubic foot structure and including equipment maintenance as a permitted use in the structure. Commissioner Theis stated that he did not agree with approving the larger size for the building. He stated that the 1961 permit did not seem to be issued properly and, therefore, should not be considered valid. Commissioner Lucht countered that there was no way to determine whether the permit was issued properly and that the City must, therefore, take responsibility for issuing the permit, recognizing it as valid. Chairman Pierce agreed with Commissioner Lucht and stressed the fact that the total volume of the building is also an important parameter in the approval . He added, however, that the full size of the building is not guaranteed by a general right to rebuild if a 16,200 square foot building would encroach into the setback area. He stated that it was the Planning Commission's responsibility to attempt to bring the site into conformance as much as possible. Commissioner. Theis asked whether Howe Fertilizer would be entitled to build any type of building it wished if there were no manufacturing on the site, the use was consequently a conforming use, and the proposed structure was within setback requirements. The Secretary answered that there would then be no limitation on the size of the building other than what setbacks and other requirements allowed. Commissioner Theis asked whether all site requirements would be within the City's jurisdiction if Howe, Inc. wished to expand its site. The Secretary affirmed that the City would have that jurisdiction. ACTION RECOMMENDING THAT CERTAIN FINDINGS BE MADE CONCERNING HOWE, INC. Ro-tion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend the following finding concerning Howe Fertilizer: that the size of the building which Howe, Inc. is entitled to rebuild should be no greater than 16,200 square feet in area and no greater than 225,800 cubic feet in volume. Voting in favor; Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Manson and Lucht. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. Commissioner Theis stated that he could not vote for a certain size of building simply because it was the size that existed at the time of the fire. Notion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to recommend the following finding concerning uses to be allowed in the building which is to replace the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at the Howe Fertilizer site: that Howe, Inc. is entitled to use the building for warehousing, storage, and vehicle and equipment maintenance. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Com- missioners Theis, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF VARIANCES FROM CERTAIN ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRE- MENTS (Howe, Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Theis to recommend denial of the following variances requested by Howe, Inc. under Application No. 79069 as not meeting the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances: 1 . A variance from Section 35-540 regarding the combination of land parcels. 2. A variance from Section 35-710 regarding drainage and curbing requirements noting that this matter is under further study by the City and certain requirements may be forthcoming. 3. Variances from Section 35-400 regarding building setback 12-6-79 requirements. -11- 4. A variance from Section 35-413,Subsection -l, regarding land- scaping requirements in the protective buffer strip. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF CERTAIN VARIANCES REQUESTED BY HOWE, INC. otion by Commissioner Lucht secon ed by Commissioner Manson to recommend approval of the following variances requested by Howe, Inc. under Application No. 79069 on the basis of meeting the Standards for Variances, subject to various conditions to minimize their impact: 1 . A variance from Section 35-413, Subdivison l, to allow an encroachment into a 100 foot buffer area for a maximum 24 ft. wide driving lane for on-site vehicle access provided that the driving lane is bounded by B-612 curb and gutter to prohibit encroachments into the buffer area. No storage of equipment or vehicles shall be allowed in this area, 2. A variance from Section 35-413, Subdivision 1 , to permit 2l parking stalls to encroach into the 100 foot buffer area along the west property line, westerly of the middle and south buildings, provided this parking area is delineated and it is designated for employee parking only as designated on an approved site plan. No storage of vehicles or equip- ment shall be allowed in this area. 3. A variance from Section 35-704, Subdivision 3, to permit a total of 65 parking stalls rather than the required 107 parking stalls provided that the approved parking is clearly delineated throughout the site as designated on an approved plan. 4. A general condition of approval of all the variances is that the applicant shall be subject to the necessary drainage and water runoff provisions to be determined at a future time. While the motion was on the floor, the Commission discussed the parking require- ments and the attempts made by the applicant to provide for parking on the site plan. The Commission also discussed the flexibility given to the applicant in designing the building to meet the recommended variances. Commissioner Theis - suggested that perhaps the variances to be approved should be tabled until the site and building plan is revised. The Secretary answered that the applicant' was free to pursue his original proposal , and that the purpose of approving certain things and denying others thereby giving the applicant direction on the general shape of an approved site and building plan. In response to a question from Commissioner Lucht, the Secretary stated that there are no hard and fast iandscaping requirements in the Zoning Ordinance. Rather, he .said, the City follows general policies and :guidelines in approving landscape plans. Voting in favor of the foregoing motion: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission then discussed the site and building plan. The Secretary stated that the condition that the eight foot high fence on the west side of the property be relocated along the actual zoning line is not actually contingent on or connected with the site and building plan approval . He stated that it is a zoning violation to use residential land for industrial purposes and if this is verified it must be rectified in any case. 12-6-79 -12- Commissioner Theis stated that he could not approve a plan in which the size of ' the building, the landscaping, and other basic features of the site are yet to be drawn. Chairman Pierce responded that the conditions set out in the recommend- ation for approval should be sent to the City Council along with the plan so that the intent of the Planning Commission is clear. Commissioner Theis questioned whether the City Council would. review simply the recommendations without a plan and be able to make any decision if a plan were note prepared. In answer to Chairman Pierce, Mr. Russell stated that he preferred that the Planning Commission act on the proposal as soon as possible, perhaps with an additional condition that the Planning Commission would have to review the final plan at a later date. Commissioner Theis stated that recommending such a plan would be an abdication of the Commission's responsibility. Mr. Russell suggested that it might be more straight forward just to deny the plan. ACTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79068 (Howe, Inc.) Motion by Commissioner Theis to deny Application No. 79068 by Howe, Inc. failed for lack of a second. The Planning Commission discussed the most appropriate way to transmit the plan to the City Council with its substantive recommendation in tact. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 79068 (Howe, Inc. ) Motion by Commissioner Manson seconded by Commissioner Lucht to recommend approval of Application No. 79068, site and building plan approval for a new building to replace the structure destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 subject to the following conditions: 1 . The site plan shall be modified prior to the City Council 's review to coincide with the variances acknowledged under Application No. 79069. 2. Building plans are subject to the review and approval of the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits . 3. Drainage, grading and utility plans are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of permits. The site is subject to subsequent drainage . and water runoff provisions as required by the City. 4. A performance agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 5. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire extinguishing system to meet NFPA Standards and shall be connected to a central monitoring devices in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all landscaped areas to assure site maintenance. 7. The size of the approved building shall not exceed 16,200 square feet and 225,000 cubic feet. 8. Plan approval acknowledges the following uses as permitted in the approved building: warehousing, storage and vehicle and equipment maintenance. 12-6-79 -13- 9. The property shall be combined through platting or registered land survey in accordance with Section 35-540 of the City Ordinances. The Preliminary Plat or R. L. S. shall be approved prior to the issuance of building permits. The final plat or R. L. S. shall be approved prior to the occupancy of the building. 10. Any outside storage of materials and trash shall be effectively screened from view in accordance with Section 35-331 , Subsection 1 (3) of the Zoning Ordinance. 11 . The existing 3 foot high opaque fence along the westerly side of the site shall be relocated along the actual zoning line separating the R1 and I-2 districts and the residential area which has been used for industrial purposes shall be rejuvenated and restored. 12. The final site plan and landscape plan shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council prior to the issuance of building permits. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Manson and Lucht. Voting against: Commissioner Theis. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEM The Secretary briefly reviewed for the Planning Commission the plan to add three drive-up lanes to the Brookdale State Bank drive-up facility at 5920 Brooklyn Boulevard. There was no negative reaction to the plan. Commissioner Lucht commented that the drive-up facility is an excellent use of the property. ADJOURNMENT Following a reminder by the Secretary that there would be a special meeting on December 10, 1979 with the City Council to review the Comprehensive Plan, there was a motion by Commissioner Lucht seconded by Commissioner Manson to adjourn the meting. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Theis, Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 11 :50 p.m. hai rman 12-6-79 -14-