HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981 05-07 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
REGULAR SESSION
t MAY 7, 1981
1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m.
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes: April 23, 1981
4. Chairman's Explanation: The Planning Commission is an advisory body. One
of the Commission's functions is to hold public
hearings. In the matters concerned in these hearings,
the Commission makes recommendations to the City
Council . The City Council makes all final decisions
in these matters.
5. Marren Anderson 81026
Request for a variance from Section 35-400 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow a 20' side corner yard setback, rather
than the 25' required.
6. Howe Fertilizer, Inca 81027
Request for site and building plan approval to eliminate
the existing potato shed and temporary storage building
and to build 14,155 sq. ft. of new industrial storage
space and 1 ,530 sq. ft of office space at 4821 Xerxes
Avenue North.
7. Howe Fertilizer, Inc. 81028
Request for Preliminary Plat approval to replat the
property at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North and 3129 - 49th
Avenue North into two lots of a proposed subdivision to
be known as Howe Addition.
8. Howe Fertilizer, Inc. 81029
Request for a variance from Section 35-413 of the Zoning
Ordinance to allow storage of equipment within the 100'
buffer area required between R1 and I-2 uses. A similar
variance request was denied under Application No. 79069.
9. Other Business
10. Discussion Items;
a) PontiIlo's Pizza
11 . Adjournment
r
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81026
Applicant: Warren R. Anderson
Location: 3400 Woodbine Lane
Request: Variance
The applicant requests a variance from Section 35-400 of the City's Zoning Ordinance
to allow a 20' side corner setback from West Palmer Lake Drive rather than the 25'
required. The property in question is located at the northwest corner of West
Palmer Lake Drive and Woodbine Lane and is surrounded by- a single family home on the
west and park land on the north and West Palmer Lake Nark that lies easterly of
Palmer take Drive. The dimensions of this somewhat pie-shaped lot are 77.91 '
along the front, 69' along the rear and roughly 140' in depth. The lot is, there-
fore, substandard as to width. The property is zoned R1 .
Variances may be granted from the literal provisions of the ordinance in instances
where their strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances
unique and distinctive to the individual property under consideration. A variance
may be granted only after demonstration by evidence that all of the following
four qualifications are met:
First, because of the particular physical surrounding, shape or
topographical conditions of the parcel involved a particular hardship,
as opposed to a mere inconvenience, would result if the strict letter
of the regulations were carried out;
Second, the conditions upon which the variance request is based are
unique to the parcel of land and are not common generally to other
property within the same zoning classification;.
Third, the hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance
and not created by persons presently or formerly having an interest
in the parcel of land; and
Fourth, the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the
neighborhood.
(See Section 35-240, Subdivision 2, Standards for Variances, attached) .
The applicant has submitted a brief letter (attached) in which he asserts that
the Standards for a Variance are met in 1 ) that the property is unique, and 2)
the variance would not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
:a
other land or improvements in the neighborhood.
Staff would disagree with the applicant's assertions on all counts. The property
is by no means unique in that there are numerous corner lots within Brooklyn Center
,�•°A;k^ �1 , which are less than 90' in width. /'The requirement that corner lots be 90 n
width was not adopted until 1968; while,herequir�gment for a 25 side corner
y setback was adopted i n 1957. Trre, ash corner 1 s were created Leer►
1957 and 1.966 which were riot more than 75' in width aqJ subject to a 25'
side corner yard setback. Moreover, to grant such a variance would so weaken
E ' he Zoning Ordinance, by leaving a precedent for numerous similar variances, that
a public welfare would ultimately be damaged. The applicant has made no con-
•°~ side
that a hardship would result if the variance were denied. Failure to
treet this standard (hardship), by itself is grounds for denial according to
Section 35-240, Subdivision 2. It should be emphasized that all of the standards
s Pi. / must be met in order to recommend the granting of a variance.
5-7-81 -1
Application No. 81026 continued
The Planning Commission should also be aware that the Zoning Ordinance does provide,
under Section 35-400, footnote (2) , that dwellings and permitted accessory structures
may be constructed to within 15' of the side corner property line of a lot which
was of legal record prior to December 19, 1957 (the date upon which the 1957 Zoning
Ordinance became effective) . The lot in question is part of Palmer Lake Terrace
2nd Addition which was filed at the County in July 1958. This lot, therefore, is
no eligible u d r the Ordinance for a side corner setback less that 25 feet.
It should also be pointed out that this application is almost identical to Appli-
cation No. 78047, a 1978 variance request from the same provision of the Zoning
Ordinance. There was extensive discussion at that time regarding the possibility
of allowing substandard corner lots created after the above mentioned date to have
a 15' side corner setback. The Commission in that case unanimously recommended
that the 25 ft. side corner setback should be maintained for all corner lots
created after December 19, 1957 and that the application did not meet the standards
for variance. The Commission also recommended no ordinance amendment. That appli-
cation was ultimately denied by the City Council .
Tf the Planning Commission feels there is merit in further ireview to allow the same
side corner setbacks to corner lots of record prior to the effective date of the
1968 Zoning Ordinance , the staff would recommend consideration be given to an
ordinance amendment rather than to accommodate the applicant by the granting of
a variance.
In light of the above considerations,it is recommended that the variance request
be denied on the grounds that the Standards for a Variance, particularly with
respect to uniqueness and hardship, are not met.
5-7-81 -2-
Section 35-240. VARIANCES
z
1 2. Standards for Variances
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the
City Council may grant variances from the literal provisions of
• this ordinance in instances where their strict enforcement would
cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinc-
tive to the individual property under consideration. However, the
Board shall not recommend and the City Council shall in no case
permit as a variance any use that is not permitted under this
ordinance in the district where the affected person's land is
located. A variance may be granted by the City Council after
demonstration by evidence that all of the following qualifica-
tions are met:
(a) Because of the particular physical surroundings,
shape, or topographical conditions of the specific
parcels of land involved, a particular hardship to
the owner would result, as distinguished from a
mere inconvenience, if the strict letter of the
regulations were to be carried out.
(b) The conditions upon which the application for a
variance is based are unique to the parcel of
land for which the variance is sought, and are
not common, generally, to other property within
the same zoning classification.
(c) The alleged hardship is related to the requirements
of this ordinance and has not been created by any
persons presently or formerly having an interest
in the parcel of land.
(d) The granting of the variance will not be detri-
mental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in -the neighborhood
in which the parcel of land is located.
3. Conditions and Restrictions
The Board of Adjustments and Appeals may recommend and the
City Council may impose conditions and restrictions in the grant-
ing of variances so as to insure compliance with the provisions
of this ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Compre-
hensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties.
i
3
J
t
DESCRIPTION OF RE,UaST
Addition of six(6) feet on Last end of Buildirg
which is located on corner of intersection of Wood-
bine Lane North and West Palmer Lake Drive, causing
less than normal setback from property line.
Note that entrance chanze from Bast end of build-
ing to North end of Building, eliminating major
personal traffic flow.
Request made upon canditions listed in standards
and procedures for zoning ordinance variences, which
are unique to this parcel of land for which varier e
is sought and not conunon, generally to other property
within same zoning classification and also would not
be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to
other land or improvements in the neighborhood in
which the parcel of land is located.
Respectfull submitted,
Warren R. Anderson
3400 Woodbine Lane No.
Brooklyn Center Min 55429
r
r
Y
MWA
=
Mm mm MR
MIM IMM
MIN
mom 0 Ad
MIM
ME
AIM
IMI
IMI
gill
MOUND
CEMETERY
R3
loins
PA R K-,'
t
J
Planning Commission Information Sheet`
1
Application No. 81027
Applicant: Howe, Inc.
Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Site and Building Plan
The applicant requests site and building plan approval to replace the 16,200 sq.
ft. building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979. As a part of this plan, they
also propose to remove the potato shed and a small portion of the middle building.
For replacement they propose two smaller industrial buildings and an addition to
the office building. Industrial space and office space, based on density factors,
are not equivalent, therefore, the total amount of building is less than the sum
of the burned out building (16,200 sq. ft.) , the potato shed (3,023.75 sq.ft. )
and the portion of the middle building (919.24 sq. ft. ) . We have used the
parking formulas to determine the amount of allowable square footage for this
plan. (Office parking requires one space for every 200 sq. ft. of gross floor
area; while industrial parking requires one space for every 800 sq. ft. of gross
floor area). One hundred seven parking stalls were required for the site at the
time of the fire. To maintain this number for parking approximately 4,500 sq. ft..
must be eliminated from the allowable industrial space if the office addition goes
forth. This has been acknowledged on the site plan. Total proposed construction
includes a 6,075 sq. ft. freestanding storage building along the north setback
line; 8,080 sq. ft. (145,507 cubic feet) of additional storage and lunch room
area to the middle building; and a 1 ,530 sq. ft. (13,770 cubic feet) second storey
addition to the 'office on the east side of the site. The total parking demand
as determined by City ordinance formula, will remain at the 107 spaces required
by ordinance for the total building area on the site prior to the fire on January
6,1979.
The proposed site plan shows 77 potential parking stalls on the site, a deficiency
of 30 stalls. While staff are somewhat skeptical about whether some of these
stalls shown can actually be used, the overriding consideration in this case is
the applicant's right to rebuild up to a capacity equivalent to what existed
prior to the fire on January 6, 1979. The variances granted under Application
No. 79069 on December 17, 1979 acknowledged this right and the parking deficiency
which is inevitable unless other variances are granted from buffer and greenstrip
requirements. The action taken in approvj-prtpjc7rtain variances and denying others
under Applicatioin No. 79069 has been the basishfor the staff review of this plan.
It is not necessary that the action be retaken at this time although acknowledgment
of those variances should be a part of any plan approval . The parking deficiency
on the site plan is, therefore, accepted based on the variances granted under
that application. (Copy of the City Council minutes for December 17, 1979 attached
for the Commission's review) .
The proposed site plan, however, does not conform entirely with the variances
approved or denied under Application No. 79069. The proposed plan shows outside
storage approximately 40 feet within the required 100 ft. buffer area immediately
east of the residence at 3129 - 49th Avenue and the applicant, under Application
No. 81029 has requested a variance for this purpose. This type encroachment was
not approved under Application No. 79069 and is not recommended for approval at
this time. Encroachment within the southerly portion of the required 100 ft.
buffer for parking and driving purposes was approved under the December 17, 1979
variance request and an enlarged area is also shown on the proposed plan.
5-7-81 -1=
t
Application No. 81027 continued
As noted in the staff report for Application No. 81028, the existing 8.foot high
opaque fence is proposed to be relocated to coincide with the westerly property
line of Howe, Inc. from the Soo Line tracks to the proposed south property line
of 3129 - 49th Avenue (The zoning line separating the Rl and I-2 districts),
thence easterly along that south property line to the southeast corner of the
property at 3129 - 49th Avenue. At that point, the proposed fence line departs
from what was acknowledged under previous variance approvals and travels to a
point roughly 40 ft. west of the 100 ft. buffer line and thence northerly to
the 50 ft. setback and buffer line along the north side of the property.
The proposed site drainage plan shows B612 curb and gutter only in a limited
area along the south side of the lot at 3129 - 49th Avenue and along the south
side of the fence line to a point 40 feet west of the actual 100 ft. buffer line.
Bituminous curb is shown along the west side of the property for approximately
115 feet south of the southwest corner at 3129 - 49th Avenue. There are no
other curbing provisions designated on the proposed plan. These provisions
are inadequate to meet the requirements of Section 35-710 of the Zoning
Ordinance and a variance from these provisions sought under Application No. 79069
was denied. Therefore, further revisions to the drainage plan are recommended
consistent with the recommendation of the City Engineer (See City Engineer's
memo attached) .
No additional landscaping has been shown on the proposed plan although an
underground sprinkling system is indicated. The applicant has expressed to the
staff the intention of adding more trees in the new buffer area east of the
residence at 3129 -49th Avenue. However, no landscape plan has yet been
received.
The proposed plan includes an addition of a second storey to the office building
on the east side of the property. It should be pointed out that the office is .
only 20 feet from the westerly right-of-way line of Brooklyn Boulevard rather
than the normally required 50 feet. However, there actually exists a separate
parcel , within the City of Minneapolis, which lies between, the office and the
public right-of-way. The office setback might technically be considered an
interior sideyard setback which need only be 10 feet. Another consideration is .
that there is some excess right-of-way on the west side of Brooklyn Boulevard.
The office is roughly 55 feet from what the normal right-of-way line would be.
Based on these considerations, it is recommended that the addition to the office
not be considered in addition to a nonconforming structure and no variance would
be required. Such an approach to interpreting the appropriate setbacks from
right-of-way was employed in approving the site plan for Cass Screw under Appli-
cation No. 79053. It should also be pointed out that the proposed Comprehensive
Plan calls for either a light industrial or "non-retail commercial " use on the
Howe site in the eventuality that the nonconforming fertilizer manufacturing
operation is removed from the property. The proposed new structures are, there-
fore, not inconsistent with the direction of the proposed Comprehensive Plan.
The applicant proposes to fire-sprinkler all new additions, including the entire
office building. With the addition to the middle building they are proposing a
two hour fire separation so that the addition can be considered a separate
building and not require full fire sprinkling of this middle building. If the
addition can be classified by the Building Official to be a separate building,
such consideration can be given. If not, the entire middle building will require
fire sprinklers.
5-7-81 -2-
Application No. 81027 continued
t
As indicated previously, Howe, Inc. is seeking an amendment to Judge Sedgwick's
ruling. We have been advised that such an amendment could drastically change
consideration of these plans. The City Attorney will be present Thursday evening
to review the matter with the Planning Commission. In light of this and the fact
that the site plan is not totally complete, it is recommended that this matter
be tabled.
5-7-81 -3-
o
The City Manager introduced the next two Planning Commission items and recom-
mended that Application No. 79068 and Application 11o. 79069 be considered
in conjunction with one another since they both related to Howe, Inc. He
tnoted that Application No. 79068 had been submitted by Howe, Inc. for site
and building plan approval for a 74' x 218' warehouse, garage, and equipment
maintenance facility at 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. He noted Application No.
79068 was recommended for approval at the December 6, 1979 Planning Commission
meeting. He noted Application No. 79069 had been submitted by Howe, Inc. for
a variance from numerous Zoning Ordinance requirements including: setbacks,
buffers, parking, curbing, replatting and landscaping.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that a review of Application
Nos. 79068 and 79069 was contained in the December 6, 1979 Planning Commission
minutes on pages 2 through 14 and that since the Council had received a copy
of the minutes he would not review all of the discussion contained in the
Planning Commission minutes. The Director of Planning and Inspection explained
Application No. 79068 was a request by Howe, Inc. for site and building plan
approval to construct an approximate 74' x 218' insulated metal building to
replace the building that was destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 at the
Howe Fertilizer site. He 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 which were being conducted in the destroyed
building at the time of the fire) . He noted that the applicant proposes to
equip the building with an automatic fire extinguishing system in accordance
with ordinance requirements. He briefly reviewed the submitted site plan
which indicates that a potential of 109 parking 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, show three principal
activity areas for garage storage, warehousing and a maintenance shop, all
divided with fire separations. He explained the building would have two
loading docks, one on the north end and the other on the east end. He explained
various overhead doors would be located around the building to provide vehicle
access.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the applicant proposes
no site alterations in conjunction 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 Director of Planning and Inspection noted that Howe, Inc. is a nonconforming
use in that they manufacture fertilizer which is not a'permitted use in the zone.
He explained two types of nonconformity exist, one being that the use is non-
conforming and the other being that Howe's building does not meet setback require-
ments.
Councilmember Kuefler expressed a concern over maintaining consistency as in his
recollection the City has not allowed structures to expand in the past where the
use is in conflict with current zoning. The City Attorney responded by explain-
12-17-79 -10-
ing that this is not an expansion as the Planning Commission viewed it and
that Howe would not be allowed to build a larger building than they had
before.
The Director of Planning and Inspection referred the City Council to page 5
of the December 6, 1979 Planning Commission minutes and 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 a valid use in 1946 and
became a nonconforming use under the City's Zoning Ordinance in 1957. 2) That
the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 was part of the entire complex,
that less than 600 of the complex was destroyed by fire and that, therefore,
the applicant is entitled to rebuild a similar warehouse on the site.
The Director of Planning and Inspection explained that two additional findings
must be made concerning the size of the building that could be rebuilt and the
types of uses permitted in the building. He explained that when Howe, Inc.
became a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance in 1957, the size of the
building was approximately 62' x 218' (13,500 square feet and 189,200 cubic
feet) . He noted 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 approxmately 74' x 218' (16,200 square feet and 225,800 cubic feet) .
He stated that the City Council should make a 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 maintenance which was being conducted
in the building at the time of the fire.
The Director of Planning and Inspection noted that there has been a ten foot
encroachment onto the residential area adjoining the Howe sitq by Howe, Inc-.
and he indicated that, regardless -of whether the site plan is approved, the
fence erected by Howe should be moved and the paved area rejuvenated.
Councilmember Kuefler referred to page 12 of the December 6, 1979 Planning Com-
mission minutes where the Planning Commission stated that 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. He inquired whether the City will assume that the appropriate drainage
requirements be implemented and then require an appropriate bond to assure that
they are implemented. The City Manager replied that this would be the procedure
which would be followed in this case.
Mayor Nyquist opened the meeting for a public hearing on Application No. 79069.
Mr. James Russell, attorney for Howe, Inc. , appeared to speak on the applica-
tion and stated that the presentation given by the Director of Planning and
Inspection gave a fair summary of Howe's request. He stated that he disagreed
with the statement in the Planning Commission materials which he indicated stated
that an economic hardship does not constitute hardship within the meaning of
the standards for variances. Mr Russell indicated that he feels an economic
hardship is justification for hardship. He noted that the Howe site was legal
when built and only became nonconforming when the new Zoning Ordinance was
passed. He noted that in his opinion, the new zoning requirements cumulatively
create an economic hardship for Howe, Inc. He stated that the results of the
fire have also created many economic hardships for Howe, Inc. Mr. Russell
indicated that the requirement of replatting the property does not really do
any practical good to anyone and there is a substantial cost for Howe to
accomplish it. He also stated the 100 foot buffer strip proposed, along
' with delineated employee parking constitute a "taking away" of what we already
have. He noted that, Section 35-111 in the Zoning Ordinance, as originally
understood by him, meant that Howe was exempt from the Zoning Ordinance.
12-17-79 -11-
Mr. Russell indicated he feels Section 35-111 permits the City Council to -
grant a variance from the buffer requirement.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the replatting of the property would
• be of any real benefit. The Director of Planning and Inspection replied that
it would be, for example, the encroachment on the residential property by Howe
would have been discovered through replatting. He also indicated that the
replatting would result in a single description of the property rather than the
numerous descriptions that now exist.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether there was any specific determination
on the fence which encroached the residential property by ten feet. The
Director of Planning and Inspection explained that the Building Inspector had
• reviewed the site and found a ten foot encroachment onto the residential area
adjoining the Howe site.
Mr. Leo Hanson, 4903 Brooklyn Boulevard, addressed the Council and expressed a
concern over the cost of replacing lawns in the neighborhood. He also stated
that he felt the width of the proposed building should be 62 feet and not 74 _
feet. Mr. Hanson indicated that he fears that the encroachment by Howe will
continue and that he would like to see the building used for warehouse and
storage only and not for other uses. He stated that, in his opinion, the
problem gets worse every year.
Mr. Fred Fournier, 4900 Zenith Avenue North, addressed the Council and stated
that the Howe building was originally built without a permit and he feels that
Howe may not comply with the variances even if they are granted. He indicated
that he would say "no" to all of the variances for Howe. r
• Ar. Marvin Reich, 3141 49th Avenue North, addressed the Council and questioned
how the Fire Marshal could approve the construction of a building which would
allow the storage of chemicals and welding in the same building. He noted that
the loading dock, in his opinion, would not be usable with cars parking in the
surrounding area, and stated that he feels the whole neighborhood has experienced
a hardship because of Howe, Inc.
Mr. Larry Butler, 3201 49th Avenue North, addressed the Council and questioned
why the temporary building on the Howe site had not been removed. The Director
of Planning and Inspection stated that removal of the building had been ordered
by the City but that it was now being appealed to the State Building Codes
Division.
Mary bodds, 4730 Xerxes Avenue North, addressed the Council and stated that
she feels the hardship experienced by Howe has never been clearly defined
and feels that Howe cannot claim a hardship. She stated that she feels Howe
should be required to follow City ordinances and should not be considered a
special case. She noted that OSHA has recently closed many fertilizer plants
across the country in past years and explained that she has been disturbed by
noise from Howe, Inc. for a long time.
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar and seconded by Councilmember Kuefler
to close the public hearing on Application r1o. 79069. Voting in favor: Mayor
• Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
Councilmember Fignar questioned whether this application had any connection with
the phase out of Howe, Inc. The City Attorney stated that the phase out deals
only with the manufacturing process and that the building could be used for
12-17-79 -12-
storage of chemicals even after 1982. ,
The City Attorney noted that the City issued a permit for the construction of
a temporary building on the Howe site under Chapter 1601 of the State Building
Code. He noted that the building was to be used for salvaging materials from
the fire at the Howe site. He stated the lawsuit by Howe challenged the City's •
right to tear down the building. He explained that Howe must now exhaust all
administrative appeals before it can go to court and noted it is now with the
State Building Codes Division. He also noted that the district court has the
final say in the matter.
Councilmember Kuefler questioned what the status of the lawn problems in the
area of the Howe site was. The City Manager stated that the State Department
of Agriculture has indicated that dust with Atrazine particles is the likely
cause of the dying lawns in the area and that an independent lab has also
verified this. Councilmember Kuefler questioned whether the neighbors must
file suit to force a determination of the cause of the dying lawns. The City
Manager explained that this was not a part of any of the City's action related
to the Howe site.
Councilmember Kuefler inquired what the legal interpretation of the 62 foot
versus 74 foot width of the proposed building would be. The Director of
Planning and Inspection stated that the dimensions of the building destroyed
by fire were 74' x 218' and that the building was built in three stages, the -
first two being supported by Council action and the third stage built in 1961
with a permit issued administratively with no Council review. Councilmember
Kuefler questioned which dimensions should be followed since the entire-dimen-
sions were not approved by the City Council. The City Attorney stated that
the records are incomplete and that we can't be certain what existed in 1957.
he noted that the best information we have is that the building was 62 feet •
wide in 1957 and after 1957 it became wider. He explained it would be a judgment
by the Council whether to go with the 1957 width or the width after 1957, which
is the 1961 width when the permit was issued by administrative personnel. The
City Attorney noted that he feels the Planning Commission recommendation in
this instance should be followed.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott to approve the denial of variances
from certain Zoning Ordinance requirements requested by Howe, Inc. subject
to the Planning Commission's conditions. The City Attorney stated that he
recommended the size determination of the structure should be considered
separately prior to consideration of the application. Councilmember Scott
withdrew her motion for approval of the denial of variances from certain
Zoning Ordinance requirements by Howe, Inc. subject to the Planning Commission
editions.
Mayor Nyquist requested the Council for a motion on a size determination for
the proposed building. There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded
by Councilmember Kuefler to make 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: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar,
and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
The Mayor then asked the Council for a motion on the uses to be allowed in
Wilding which is to replace the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 ~
at the Howe Fertilizer site. There was a motion by Councilmerber Kuefler and
seconded by Councilmember Fignar to find that Howe, Inc. is entitled to use
the building which is to replace the building destroyed by fire on January 6,
12-17-79 -13-
1979 at the Howe Fertilizer site for warehousing, storage, and vehicle and
equipment maintenance. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers
Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The motion passed
• unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember
Fignar to deny the following variances requested by Howe, Inc. under Applica-
tion 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 require-
ment may be forthcoming. 3. Variances from Section 35-400. regarding building
setback requirements. 4. A variance from Section 35-413, Subsection 1, regarding
landscaping requirements in the protective buffer strip. ' Voting in favor:
Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against:
none. The motion passed unanimously.
There was a motion by Councilmember Kuefler and seconded by Councilmember
Fignar to approve 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: l.' A variance from
Section 35-413, Subdivision 1, to allow an encroachment into a 100 foot buffer
area for a maximum 24 foot wide driving lane for on-site vehicle access pro-
vided that the driving lane is bounded by B612 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 21 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 arga is delineated and is designated for employee parking. only 1,
as designated on an approved site plan. No storage of vehicles or equipment
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. Voting
in favor: Mayor Nyquist, Councilmembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting
against: none. The motion passed unanimously.
Councilrnember Kuefler requested a clarification of the encroachment problem
by Howe, Inc. on the adjoining residential area. The Director of Planning
and Inspection stated the encroachment is a Zoning Ordinance violation which
must be corrected immediately regardless of the approval or denial of any
variances or the site and building plans.
Councilmember Kuefler suggested that a more aesthetically pleasing exterior
to the proposed metal building be found. The City Manager replied by
indicating that this determination could be made at the time of the site and
building plan review.
Councilmember Scott stated that she would not vote for any site and building
plan approval without revised site and building plans being submitted by Howe,
Inc. indicating changes that reflect the approved variances. Councilmember
Fignar agreed and stated that he feels that such plans should be submitted
before any action is taken. The City Attorney indicated that it is typical
to have plan revisions submitted before any approval is given.
12-17-79 -14-
There was a motion by Councilmember Fignar to table Planning Commission r
Application P:o. 79068 pending submission of revised site and building
plans by Howe, Inc. Mr. James Russell, attorney for Howe, Inc. , requested
the City Council to act on the plan as submitted. Councilmember Fignar
withdrew his motion tabling Planning Commission Application No. 79068. •
There was a motion by Councilmember Scott and seconded by Councilmember
Kuefler to deny Planning Commission Application No. 79068 submitted by
Howe, Inc. on the basis that the plans submitted do not reflect the
variances authorized by the City Council. Voting in favor: Mayor Nyquist,
Councilnembers Kuefler, Fignar, and Scott. Voting against: none. The
motion passed unanimously.
The City Attorney noted that Howe, Inc. can submit a new site and building
plan for review.
CITY
Bjr)j OF 6301 SHINGLE CREEK PARKWAY
fit ���J BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA 55430
1 '� TELEPHONE 561-5440
EMERGENCY-POLICE-FIRE
561-5720
TO: Ron Warren, Director of Planning and Inspections
FRCM: Sy Knapp, Director of Public Tnbrks
DATE: May 6, 1981
RE: Howe, Inc. - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
In reviewing the preliminary plat and the proposed site development plans as submitted
by Howe, Inc. I refer to the memorandum entitled "Proposed Guidelines for Fire-
Fighting and Storm. Runoff Water Controls at Chemical Storage Sites" dated December
12, 1979, and prepared for the City of Brooklyn Center by Eugene A. Hickok and Asso-
ciates, Hydrologists-Engineers; and to the letter report from the Hickok firm, also
dated December 12, 1979, in which specific recom Te-n ations are made for application
of the guidelines to the Howe, Inc. site. Two exhibits from the Hickok report (Fig-
ures 1 aril 2) are attached hereto.
Primary site drainage (see Figure I\b. 3) is provided by a 54 inch storm sewer which
traverses the southeasterly corner of the site. This storm sewer also provides
integral part of the Ryan Lake/'Rain lake watershed drainage system connecting Ryan
lake to Ryan Creek.
It must be noted that when this storm sewer is blocked or closed, there is no outlet
for drainage of the Ryan lake/Twin lake watershed area.
Following the fire at Howe, Inc., which occurred in January, 1979, the MPCA did order
this storm sewer bulkheaded in order to prevent discharge of contaminated water into
Ryan Creek/Shingle Creek and the Mississippi River. Fortunately, no heavy runoffs
occured during the period of time during which the storm sewer was bulkheaded. Had
a heavy rainfall occured, the City would have had two choices, i.e. :
(1) continue to retain the water, resulting in possible flooding of properties
surrounding Ryan Lake and Twin Lake; or
(2) remove the bulkhead from the storm sewer, allowing the contaminated water to
discharge into Ryan Creek/Shingle Creek/and the Mississippi River.
The problem with the existing system is that it is very difficult to isolate (or shut-
off) site drainage from the Howe site, while keeping the storm sewer functional.
The Hickok reports recommend that provisions be made which would make it possible to
isolate the runoff from the Howe site in the event of another catastrophe, while keep-
ing the storm sewer operational for the balance of the Ryan Lake/Twin Lake watershed.
The report contains suggested concepts for a permanent system (i.e., a 990,000 gallon
• detention pond, with liner, outlet control and provisions for discharge of polluted
graters to the sanitary sewer system--see Figure No. 1 attached) and for an interim
system (i.e., construction of a dike, with provisions for stopping flow into the storr.
sewer via the two on-site catch basins--see Figure Ib. 2 attached) .
May 6, 1981
Memo to Ron Warren RE: Howe, Inc. - Preliminary Plat and Site Plan
Page 2
At our meeting with Zbm Howe on April 21, 1981, I requested that current improvement
plans incorporate provisions for implementation of the "Interim" plan, adding details
which would assure the ability to positively prevent on-site drainage from entering
the storm sewer in the event of an Emergency (i.e. , sane relatively minor nodifica-
tions to the catch basins and manholes on-site) .
My review of the site development plan submitted by Howe, Inc. on April 27, 1981,
indicates that this plan does not accomplish the objectives of the interim plan in
that it does not provide adequate retention area, and makes no provisions for positive
isolation of the on-site drainage from the storm sewer.
I recommend:
(1) that one condition for approval of the preliminary plat should be the incorpora-
tion of a conceptual plan to incorporate on-site retention of contaminated
storm water--as proposed by Hickok's Interim Plan; and
(2) that one condition of site development plan approval should be the development
of a detailed plan meeting the City Engineer's approval.
SY APP
Director of Public Kbrks
CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER
cb
Attachements: Figures 1 and 2 - fran Hickok Report
Figure 3 - Existing Drainage Facilities Sketch (by City)
J Li O O
i W CL J O W ..a
J Z0OQ�i
a O
0-W 0 ®z��
•
ow z Q�!" cn a �
N Q J O fW.. L!1 N
W)- ON 4 W o "
>cr- Cr
(� to
(X a -- __ ___ I U)
wV) Qom .;
o 2 0 cr,
G
N� I 0 Lo
t1! r
` rc:j o
CL
a
w
cr
u
w
0
o z
w u Lu
9 U
�..
wCC
w
LL
f
0 w O
o y o
�. o m U-.
U- W � �
° oaf
a
J V Z
N _1
I �
IL
U�Oc o�
(77)�Q
Wzo,T
O
s
•
w z
u► N
ta.
Z
f � ► ZL
a w
.0 orr
- r�� � Q rl j �►
fl-
W: : " -- 0
?; W
Lu
o
d ® L O
( W LL
LL W
LU
C
T ' W �- Z
d
U.
r
ID
t
•
i
m
c
�{ O
0
o
a
O � :IJ v o 0
� N r b x
M
�Z
L�tn o _
b um Q
flu
�rn b
. 1
4 ' AA7q
December 12, 1979
545 Indian Mound y
Wayzata, Minnesota 55391
Mr. Gerald Splinter , City Manager (612)473-4224
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Re: Proposed Guidelines for Storm and Runoff Water
Controls at Chemical Storage Sites
Dear Mr. Splinter:
This letter and the enclosed Technical Memorandum are submitted in
accordance with your letter of October 23 , 1979 advising us to
proceed with the referenced work. The need for site runoff
controls was dramatized by the fire which occurred in Brooklyn
Center at' the Howe , Inc . fertilizer facility in January, 1979 .
Agricultural chemicals involved in this fire were carried by fire
fighting water away from the site .
The enclosed Technical Memorandum investigates and recommends
runoff water control criteria which could be applied to
appropriate commercial and industrial sites . We note that a large
portion of the Metropolitan Area currently is subject to general
runoff controls under watershed district rules and regulations .
The basis for these is the 100-year return period/24-hour duration
storm (normally 6 inches of rainfall ) , and the detention storage
requirement is the difference between total runoff for such storm
under "developed" (or otherwise altered) conditions versus unde-
veloped conditions .
In addition to our recommendations in the Draft Technical Memorandum,
we recommend that the same general requirements noted above be
adopted in the City of Brooklyn Center. The special controls for
sites with toxic or hazardous materials, as covered in the
Technical Memorandum, would then be additional requirements for
applicable sites .
In the remainder of this letter, the recommended criteria are
illustrated by preliminary application to the Howe, Inc . site .
In addition, this letter reviews interim considerations for the
Howe, Inc. site .
Description of Howe , Inc. Site
The site is located approximately two miles west of the Mississippi
River in the southeast corner of the triangle formed by the Soo
Line Railroad to the south, State Highway 152 to the east and
State Highway 100 to the northwest. The site is used for storage
of agricultural chemicals, including fertilizers and pesticides .
r
t
,.r,kok and A ,ociatr.;, Inc.
required. (Note that this volume could be reduced substan-
tially if activities and materials of pollution concern were
restricted to an area , building , or portion of a building ,
and runoff was separately and positively controlled from this
area. )
4. Runoff detention pond: Required with the following
characteristics:
a. Minimum detention volume of 990 ,000 gallons.
b. Artificial membrane liner compatible with chemicals which
may be present in runoff from the site , or natural soil
materials providing the equivalent of at least 2 feet of
material with permeability of 10-7 centimeters per second .
c. Outlet control mechanism.
5. Treatment or alternative disposal :
of disposal must be
made
for treatment or alternative means
con-
taminated runoff found to have pollutant concentrations in i
excess of any discharge permit effluent limitations under the
1
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) . It
appears that this could be accomplished by connecting to the
nearby sanitary sewer and providing a pump as needed . Pumping
at a rate of 250 gallons per nminute
less thanwould
three t days ,e t
andwould
tion pond (990 ,000 gallons ) l
temporarily increase the flow of sanitary sewage by less than
0. 4 million gallons per day. It is possible that pre- ;
treatment of water discharged to the sanitary sewer would be
required, depending on concentration limits to be set by the
p. S. Environmental Protection Agency for "priority
pollutants . " i
In the above, note that the detention pond volume requirement
could be reduced substantially if ( 1 ) sprinkler systems were
installed, and (2 ) activities and materials of pollution con-
cern were restricted to an area, building , or portion of a
building, and runoff was separately and positively controlled
from this area.
Interim Considerations
As an interim emergency measure , temporary ponding can be effected
at the southeast corner of the site if, a dike is emplaced between
the railroad grade and the State Highway 152 overpass slope .
Based on somewhat incomplete data on a drawing entitled , "Spot
Evaluations" (June 1977 ) provided through the City of Brooklyn
Center, in excess of 1 ,000 , 000 gallons of water could be detained
with a water surface elevation of 857 feet.
Based on the "Site Drainage Plan" (May 1979 ) provided through the
City of Brooklyn Center, the area of the Bowe , Inc . property is
4.4 acres , excluding the residential lots in the northwest por-
tion. The property appears to abut or lie partly within the City
of Minneapolis.
A 54-inch storm drain crosses the Soo Line Railraod from south to
north, then turns eastward under State Highway 152 and outlets
into Ryan Creek. In times of high water, this storm drain serves
as the outlet for Ryan Lake . A catch basin on Soo Line property
near the southeast corner of the Howe , Inc . site connects to the
54-inch drain and receives most of the site drainage .
A portion of the site apparently has "dead" drainage at the north-
west. In addition, it is believed that a catch basin near the
southwest corner of the site connects to the 54-inch storm drain
via an 8-inch PVC pipe .
A 33-inch sanitary sewer in Brooklyn Center connects to a
Minneapolis sewer at State Highway 152 and 49th Avenue North . The
Minneapolis sewer is 24 inches in diameter and has a steeper slope
than the larger sewer which feeds it. According to a 1966 report
by consultants to the City of Minneapolis , the 24-inch sewer has a
capacity of 18 . 3 million gallons per day and a projected year 2000
maximum dry weather flow of 11 . 2 million gallons per day at the
point of connection from Brooklyn Center.
Preliminary Application of Recommended Criteria
If the criteria recommended in the enclosed Draft Technical
Memorandum are assumed to be applicable to the Howe , Inc. site,
then based on available information, specific requirements would
be as follows:
1. Classification and general requirements : Since no positive ,
separate runoff control exists for a well-defined portion of i
the site, the site would be Class 1 , and runoff computations
would be based on the entire site area of 4 .4 acres . (This
of course could be changed if appropriate operational changes !
and runoff controls were implemented . ) General requirements
would be for impermeable floor and ground cover throughout the
site , and all drainage , including floor and roof drains , to a i
detention pond. (With appropriate changes, this would apply
only to a portion of the site . )
2. Fire fighting water detention volume: Since the facilities
have no sprinkler system, a minimum volume of 500 ,000 gallons
would be required. (With sprinkler systems installed , the
minimum volume would be 100 , 000 gallons . )
3. Storm runoff detention volume: Based on the site area of 4 .4
acres, and the specified precipitation of 4 . 1 inches , a mini-
mum volume of 1 . 5 acre-feet, or 490 ,000 gallons, would be
w
�'
'4
•
_Ifickok and/1;':oriafr•,, Inc.
1
A Minnesota Department of Transportation drawing showing the pro-
file of the State Highway 152 overpass indicates that a dike of
maximum height seven feet ( top elevation 857 . 5 feet) would suffice
for the above . The dike length would be approximately 70 feet.
It is cautioned that the drawings on which these dimensions and
volume area based were produced for different purposes and give
only tentative results for the present purpose .
In addition to temporary dike construction, flow of water into the
catch basins near the southeast and southwest corners of the site
would need to be stopped . This could be readily accomplished by
sandbagging the beehive inlets. If flow is not stopped , runoff
water will enter the 54-inch storm drain and flow into Ryan Creek.
The interim emergency measures described here have serious short-
comings . In particular, they do not in any way prevent infiltra-
tion into the groundwater of contaminated runoff , an especially
important consideration at the Howe, Inc. site, where soils are
quite permeable .
Therefore, the interim measures must not come to be viewed as a
final solution. By the same token, investment in interim control
devices for the catch basins is viewed as detracting from the goal
of implementing a complete solution.
It has been a pleasure working with you and your staff on this
project and we appreciate the excellent cooperation and assistance
you- have provided. Please call me with any questions which you
may have on this matter.
Respectfully submitted,
EUGENE A. HICKOK AND ASSOCIATES
r
o man C. Wenck, P.E.
Vice President
NCW:crs
w o
w
4,
ZV! t
� w
�
Y i -
o 1'1 l
w „ -
Id
rc�j , Q
All,
4/ J W tj
W
N u
o
o
a°' h cr. w u
CL o LL
. s
LL w
r' C> � �
IAJ
4..
r
�Q Q.
. U V~1 !
1 •
{
Application No. 81027
.61 1" {L %all
•. �
7:7777777--•l• -- _ -•1.•-i.1 .ail►. � .J•\` ;' '-
,>.� � i ♦r «.. 1 ! ; -/`.. � ', pus Y.fi
♦ � CµltS lD r_
j � aSOgeEE /,- /'/.�� � •�, �: ,ter:
• 7. // l mss,. - 'yP^ ( .an>.a \ �y. ,•.
{ �� •. -/ •••ryl`�'i // ,/• .. ��i.r.•u:. �• '•��%fir ••r♦,y1.
=♦ \ w // �(was -�{
'LisJ..�••���....��� / __�" _ \-* a
.. _ _• '�..•as �.� ..a - .a:: � lt1 Y
- tom`` +_`.\� isaa •a•.a.a rs r.,.a aw R
...�-� ` T" •• ~ate``` \ � - MM•a.{{tt,
SITE n°A.IiSIT�IAG�FI A�� ,� �•� -r•:.,�:.�
_ a wu.(..r aas:s ••ta tr.w aaL R J•atai.��,a♦ta«NM•..•a - - •
•
f
F,
t
•r -
-- -- t
R3 0
01 ST AVE N
_ - HAPPY HOLLOW
PARK
2
J <
� 4 0
T A E 0 a N• OTH AVE N.
Z Z
Y Z
�• � � z
o r - O n _
a ~ a = u
• 9 u m z
>
49 TH
Ave
49TH AVE M.
61027, 81028,NOS.
Q
MIC 2 .
.fit
4' TN AVE. y y�
Ft3 '
j -, ,- RYAN LAKE
z > > <
r z
46T AVE N CI
U
M =
H <
0 ;
z C U
W < O
O < t
N - AL BRAUN
z
4 F
•
» Planning Commission Information Sheet
w Application No. 81028
Applicant: Howe, Inc.
Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
• Request: Preliminary Plat Approval
The applicant is seeking preliminary plat approval to replat into parcels, the
land in Brooklyn Center that makes up the Howe Fertilizer operation and the
residential property at 3129 - 49th Avenue North. The property in question is
bounded by State acquired property and the City of Minneapolis on the east, by
the Soo Line Railroad tracks on the south; by the residence at 3135 - 49th Avenue
on the west; and by 49th Avenue North on the north. Section 35-540 of the Zoning
Ordinance requires the combination into a single parcel of land through platting
or registered land survey of multiple parcels of land under common ownership and
which are contiguous and adjacent and are proposed to serve a single development
use. Howe, Inc. requested a variance from this requirement under Planning Com-
mission No. 79069 in December, 1979. This application was ultimately denied by
the City Council . The proposed plat would satisfy that condition of the Zoning
Ordinance.
As indicated, the plat includes the lot at 3129 - 49th Avenue which currently is
divided by the zoning line separating the I-2 and Rl Zoning Districts. It should
be noted that the replatting will create a remnant parcel in the City of Min-
neapolis lying to the east of Howe's office building that is presently part of
the Howe operation. This parcel is indicated on the survey submitted, but will
not be a part of the final plat for the property.
The plat itself will consist of one block with two lots. Lot 1 will be the
industrial site and Lot 2 will be the residential property at 3129 - 49th Avenue.
The current zoning line will , in effect, become the property line separating
Lots 1 and 2.
The survey submitted shows an 8' high wood fence located partially on the Rl
zoned property and partially on the industrial site. The site plan submitted
under, Application No. 81027 proposes to relocate this fence in line with the
inner edge of the green buffer area leaving the open area exposed to abutting
residences.
The remnant parcel in Minneapolis, as indicated previously, is part of the Howe
operation and is shown as such on the proposed site plan. It is recommended that
an agreement be executed, in a form approved by the City Attorney, that this
parcel be bound to the other Howe industrial property. Such an agreement should
be executed prior to final plat approval and be filed with the title to the
property.
Drainage for the site currently empties into storm sewer leading to Ryan Creek
and there is no means as yet to contain possible contaminated water should there
be some sort of chemical spill or other accident on the site. The City Engineer
has recommended that interim emergency drainage provisions be installed in
accordance with the recommendations of the 7Hickok report submitted in •p+Y,,UAc�..►�ce
/q79-%W. The Planning Commission is referred to a memo from the City Engineer
regarding these requirements for a fuller discussion of the drainage of the site.
It is recommended that as a condition of the plat the Hickok "interim consider-
7ations" for drainage be adopted as a conceptual plan with final details to be
dei:eed by the City Engineer prior to issuing building permits for any con-
struction on the site.
5-7-81 -1-
Application No. 81028 continued'r
It should also be pointed out that Howe, Inc. has requested amendments to Judge
Sedgwick's March 30, 1981 decision particularly with respect to her conclusion
that the City's action in denying variances and granting conditional approval .to •
rebuild was reasonable. A hearing on that matter was scheduled for May 6, 1981 .
If the judge amends her order, the "ground rules" for reconstruction could change.
Evaluation of the plat, and more particularly, the site plan, is very difficult
pending her decision.
Subject to changes requested by the City Engineer, the plat is generally in
order and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions:
1 . The final plat is subject to approval by the City Engineer.
2. The final plat is subject to the provisions of Chapter 15 of
the City Ordinances.
3. The Hickok "interim considerations" for drainage is adopted as
an interim conceptual drainage plan with final details to be
wed by the City Engineer prior to issuing building
permits for construction on the site.
4. Prior to final approval , an agreement shall be executed, in .
a form to be determined by the City Attorney, to bind the
remnant parcel of the Howe industrial site located in the City of
Minneapolis to Lot 1 , Block 1 , of the proposed Howe Addition.
The agreement shall be filed with the title to the property.
A public hearing has been scheduled and notices have been sent.
5-6-81 -2-
L
Ipplication No. 81028
- tNeNtN . `��CS-•_ . .fc1h ,f - '�f .'. ,w'•`....r t °'� a"^". i �'; .I"ft eanf9 of CA 11
If ,��.r .� csw.. s ti•w« ..t-rY' 1* '. o _ 'I \ :: 'il'�C. _ r 1
�ti, i ,,r';• I pt V ri }; ;� S
• t' t ,rte ,i t
- f lttllr � 'C-Er \ 1 �;': � t'' '', f I I �f+Fr 'yt,}�• I 'l}
L� , ` t. -a` +y Y f ��'` lolll�EM[F' � � ` �a i= •�• '�� t�
s Cr 'r' v
J A
{; / 'c t.. g:aa 4 Y' s���� t �I �!'�'i t \1�:� 'y. t,,4 rrl�• t ( 1: \ ,
ZY
ti Elfi.• I /`l/ / �_\;:: -: t't r =I S tx•'cie
Y�l � � , � zwt:n�7 drvli: I 1 S'• �'S�\fT• '� �• ��.� ^'
�' •11
i.�1 / ��.1 :: 72T � ��' _ _ uJi i C°"�rf `���\• "��``. �.E iyt t 4y;,' •` �,ti�t 7 1
�#1 s Via'�.0�„.`��.Se�,�_ c►P=O s njfi� �^ , 1 S'r a �/1 I' o'p
fl c
,, +r E111 1'1 t s 1�E•1 y'�F 4 It
00,Ow t E+
�n
C
•. i 7 �OC f'1 � '��\� �.f'-Sf [ h"l�"��l r .,s �i'l� V
Ar !S � 511 i ,w +•.,, 4 '.S �.
r !it'♦ �/ Y `i$1 ��• �IDD��. � `= Sp'Stn •i�.` � 'yam + ,.P��' U
�"--��E.a "a,._�
IX-
/ %'•t,7 O� sf- i
eS+Sr s T +►��t o. .. - %F��\_ t V I t7• pr
.oi
1 /V-
\\
3 l8 O a00 r�+\�'..�br. '�r•s g `et.,r 'EYoq, I !f..Ell SSt .I i
\`�� /'°ts NUr 9Ejk,E� f I �Nr' _ ` p• � \
\\`A\` \ ;'� gib; •,T'\ tggTfD p S 11 p ?v"7r y' i,,.• c61SSCS'� o
/ N
rA-
IZ
III \x
Olt
rA M75.gp A\., ••Ib�N
"I0'4 ' ..,��. �,\�,ns F w'`//,`n ,�.. `• •+� -��Se� �ae
t!n '`�r•�e' f0'3. � e� rp!•t`� / �/�u+P pp�ti �.`� !::i��C.i
0 to ^ d ?o i •'� ya!i•t i ./ f Tn,. Sc
ot
•'!(j, `��p� �f.'w,` Y \ •,s _ � �.$/ � '. � ,.Vin:r�
•V hr
�`• Y Ett r roves•!''y4! •...,�I)6 `- \\ /
too
' •pts' mar. ••.,,,9�(,. '��... � .n`t
at5�ije���'� ° "'r 1/!T� '«s� � - - `>v_ .ir�sa'�'I�.14'rrli'�,r---i. .t-•%'=-•-•.
__�`------ _____"�••` --------- --- '- � Y., ' t✓�,`a ._.. _. ,...... �.1. »•.-- -- 1,ii�.i?" 1a ..,r;h.-_
Planning Commission Information Sheet
Application No. 81029
Applicant: Howe, Inc.
Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
Request: Variance
The applicant is seeking variance from Section 35-413 of the Zoning Ordinance to
allow outside storage within approximately 40 feet of the required 100 ft. buffer
area immediately east of the property at 3129 - 49th Avenue North. The buffer
area would thus be approximately 60 feet rather than the 100 feet. (See area
shown on attached site plan) .
The applicant has submitted a letter with the application (attached) in which he
addresses the Standards for Variances. To summarize, he feels the standards are
met because:
a) Devotion of the entire area required by approval of Application
No. 79069 for buffer would reduce productive space at the Howe
site by 11 .9%. This reduction will not leave enough visible
land on the site to park fertilizer applicators which Howe
rents out.
b) Howe, Inc. is unique because it is the only instance in the
City where R1 and I-2 or I-1 zoned land abut at a property line.
(This is not totally correct. There is such an abutment near
the southern tip of north Twin Lake. However, since the land
is entirely undeveloped, no conflict has arisen in that
instance) .
c) The applicant also argues that the hardship was created by the
ordinance which was passed in 1957. He asserts that Howe, Inc.
has used the buffer since 1946. (This also does not seem to be
correct since a residence existed in part of the buffer area to
the east well into the 1970's. Moreover, the aerial photographs
taken as late as 1975 show that the north 75 feet of Lots 3 and
4 of Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition, were not used for
storage. Also, in 1.957 when the industrial zone was expanded to
49th Avenue Nor .-----TOO X00 ft. buffer setbacks from residential
property (both at the street line and property line) were
established) .
d) The applicant also argues that there is no dp eterious affect
on the public welfare or the neighborhood t44t the variance is
granted since there will still be increased buffer area and the
outside storage will continue to be completely screened by an
8 foot high opaque fence.
The points made by the applicant may in some respects be reasonable. But, these
points really only serve as ,If part of the basis for granting a variance from the
100 ft. buffer strip requirement to the extent already approved by Application
No. 79069. That variance approval allowed for full encroachment into the
southern (and major) portion of the buffer strip area for the purpose of access
to the west end of the southerly and middle building and also for employee
parking. The staff would be prepared to recommend enlargement of this area to
allow for more driving area between the middle and proposed north building than
was comprehended under Application No. 79069 to accommodate traffic based on
5-7-81 -1-
Application No. 81029 continued
y
the revised plan submitted. However, other encroachments into the setback buffer
area are not recommended. The arguments, for all practicable purposes,- are
essentially the same as in 1979 and it is felt that the recommendation should as
well be the same. Since the 1979 variance decision has been upheld as reasonable
by the District Court (although under Appeal ) the staff can find no basis for
recommending other major changes to the approval granted under Application No.
79069.
To respond briefly to the arguments of the applicant, we would offer the follow-
ing comments;
Points b and c made by the applicant simply are not a valid basis
for expansion of the variance. Although Howe, Inc. is in a fairly
unique situation, their situation has been improved by the variances
already granted under Application No. 79069.
Points c and d are also incorrect to an extent as previously pointed
out. The area now roughly required for buffer has not been used
continuously for outside storage since 1946. Outside storage of equipment
within that buffer area is considered a zoning violation and can have
a deleterious affect on the neighborhood.
Perhaps the crux of the matter lies with Point a in which the appli-
cant expresses his need for the use of land required for a buffer.
He argues that the dedication of an additional 11 .9% of the site to
buffer area will make it impossible for Howe, Inc. to store as many
fertilizer applicators on the site as it presently has on hand. It
should be noted that other options do exist to accommodate this
situation such as leasing space off-site for storage.
It is felt that the only question which the Planning Commission must
address is whether the dedication of additional 11 .9% of the land on
the site presents an unjustified hardship for the applicant. Con-
sidering the extent of land which is typically dedicated for buffer
area in cases where buffers are required, it does not seem the amount
of land in this case is unreasonable.
Based on the information provided, it is felt that the applicant has
not shown that the Standards for a Variance have been met to the extent
that another variance to allow a storage area in the 100 ft. buffer
for fertilizer spreaders should be granted.
As indicated previously, Howe, Inc.is( requesting amendments to Judge
Sedgwick's ruling. One of the matters is her conclusion regarding the
reasonableness of the City to deny certain variances and grant con-
ditional approval of the rebuilding of the destroyed building. It is
not felt that it would be appropriate to take action regarding this
matter until the judge's decision is further clarified or amended.
Therefore, it is recommended that this application be tabled as well .
A public hearing has been scheduled with respect to the variance requests and
notices have been sent.
5-7-81 -2- °
{ r , ,.a , "; '4821 Xerxes Ave. No. • Minneapolis, MN 55430
FERTILIZERS•AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS ;': r (612) 535-1030
April 23 , 1981
Mr. Ronald Warren
Planning Director
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430
Dear Mr. Warren,
This letter is a request for a variance from the City' s current
zoning ordinance regarding land use. The proposed site plan shows
an encroachment of approximately forty feet into the 100 foot buffer
strip suggested by the City between industrial and residential zoning.
The purpose of the request . is to provide a dedicated space to store
the two-wheel applicators and spreaders that would not interfere with
the flow of traffic and parking..
Howe, Inc. owns approximately 75 fertilizer applicators which are
stored, during the winter and at times during other seasons when not
in use , along the westerly and northerly perimeter of Howe , Inc.
shielded from public view by an eight-foot high opaque fence. Much
of the space they are presently stored would be taken by the proposed
100 foot - buffer between industrial and residentially zoned properties .
The applicators measure approximately 8 ' x 14 ' and would take approx-
imately 8 ,400 square feet to store 75 of them. Much of this space
would be provided in a 6 ,000 square foot area west of the proposed
north building and east of the proposed new fence location.
This storage area is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the
ordiance by providing 60 feet of buffer which would continue to provide
a modified use of the site. The application of this ordinance prevents
Howe,' Inc. from continuing to use its land for applicator storage
because of the hardship the ordinance places on the site.
a. Land Conditions Create Hardship
The Howe site was intensively used at the time of the fire. At
that time only 91,000 square feet of the site was available for driving
and parking of cars , trucks and fertilizer applicators for leasing.
The total site area is approximately 188 ,000 square feet. The City
Manager of Brooklyn Center has stated in a memorandum to the City
Council that the Howe site was overutilized and overcrowded as it
existed at the time of the fire . Now the City seeks to remove
approximately 10 ,875 square feet (as suggested by the variance approval)
from Howe ' s use to create a buffer from adjacent residential property .
This represents 11. 90 of the available space at Howe . The hardship
is obvious ; there would no longer be space available to park fertilizer
applicators and no longer enough room to handle trucks in and around
the plant.
b. Uniqueness of Application for Parcel
The 100•-foot setback requirement is unique to this parcel insofar
as it is the only industrial use of land in Brooklyn Center that
immediately abuts residentially-zoned 1 property. This parcel is also
unique because Howe , Inc. is the owner of both the industrial zoned
property and the affected residential properties .
Chemically Combined Plant Foods Full Line Fertilizers & Services
�. Page 2 ,
April 23 , 1981 ,
City of Brooklyn Center
ft
c Hardship Created. by Ordinance
The 100-foot setback was created by ordinance in 1957 . Howe
has used the 100-foot setback area from about 1946 to the present
time.
d. Effect on Other Property in Neighborhood
There can be no deleterious effect on the public welfare or
neighborhood. Howe has used the area for parking and storage of
fertilizer applicators for many years . There is now and has been
for serveral years an eight-foot high opaque fence on the property
line between Howe and the abutting residential property. The area
will be fully blacktopped. The applicators are not moved on a daily
basis . There is no visual interference with the neighborhood . The
adjacent residential properties are owned by Howe , Inc. , so that
there is not a private owner immediately effected by the variance.
Because of the unique circumstances to this particular property,
which we have outlined above and other oral arguments which may be
presented at the hearing, we are asking a variance be approved as
proposed.
Sincerely yours ,
0 2 9
i r
J!IN ay "ule
!aar_ ,`��� j i.:....r:a. r � - a-�. a •_, - 111 ay,♦ 'r"t •,n.` \t -
♦ •J
•R ��_ Genla �/r a•♦t 1
MA
cr
le
.. � / •/.�, 'Lot �: �: t/ mot,` r a ♦ :. 1` �, y `
�'"•jw=.��` +�t Vap / /�/ // /� 1 / �/ a:> at Ili+' f ` - 9 1
t =i t�•e �y .�aa t'� � htpa '=/.f \�•`�` t t'.
Jam•.• �\`7 {.`1`` / �. f:�l�•a+.;6`='R Xwaiw .
.K~�~AvL/s �-�- - l`""r'�- u-- '..���/.1 /// / 4 i .ta�4�•J� aye�•� .*'�',,G` 4
' _ 4`���• �v-s '�-•..,� .a� jam' ..,.. � i`'••✓''S
/0. 1 �w "� 1 •� aMa
UUU SITE D?aINAGE P! �' •n
uaw.(w.•a aat:T s•Ta.��...a.•aL f�/�co.wT6a A►.•a�s.•ra r a
f roa•.r •+I aaoa.
ink
- 3• • a.• a•ar.•a•e.•f ca.
r�
:Y
•