HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979 03-22 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
SPECIAL SESSION
• March 22, 1979
CITY HALL '
CALL TO ORDER
The Planning Commission met in special. session and was. called to order by Chairman
Hal Pierce at 3:05 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Manson and Lucht. Also
-present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald W4rren, City Manager Gerald
Splinter, City Attorney Richard Schieffer, Acting City Engineer James Noska and
Planning Aide Gary Shallcross.
APPLICATION- NOS. 79016 and 79017 (Howe, Inc.)
Following the Chairman s explanation, the Secretary introduced the Application by
Howe, Inc: for site and building plan approval and a variance from Chapter 35 as
the only items of business for the evening's meeting. The Secretary explained the
various reports concerning Howe Fertilizer had been, or would soon be, received by
City staff. These reports included one from Hickok and Associates relating to
chemicals and water quality, the report of the fire protection consultant, and a
report regarding blasting at the site by R. L. Loofbourow.
The Secretary reviewed the applicant's plan to rebuild an approximate 217 ° x 74'
building constructed similar in design, function and location to that of the build-
ing destroyed by fire. The building, he said, housed maintenance operations,
chemicals and fertilizers and was also used for storage of vehicles and equipment.
u e-14...t +a.. ..,...74..�..t nv.nv�nrnP to nnne-+v.�.�± w nv�o��c± rnnrre+e htiilrlinn with fire
N .3%A4#.%.;%A 414 urn... I �� p oposcs- -o cc ._.�- uc precast.,. ....nc e� building _h _
wail separations between Lne warehouse area ana Lice 111dIIILf=Ilal It.C aiw yaiava a 'ad�.
The former building was a metal pole barn type building. In addition, he went on,
the plan also shows an approximate 37' x 74' lower level located approximately in
the middle of the building to be used for dead file storage. The plan, he noted,
indicates a 25' separation between the new and the existing middle building, rather
than an approximately 11 ' separation which existed at the time of the fire.
The Secretary explained that the applicant is also seeking a variance: both for
the reconstruction of a nonconforming use and for an encroachment into setback and
buffer requirements. The Secretary pointed out that the proposed building would
encroach on the 100' buffer strip where 1-2 abuts Rl and the setback requirements
from a major thoroughfare of 50 feet. He noted that these problems are exacerbated
by the applicant's proposal for a 25' separation between the new building and the
existing middle building.
In addressing the issue of expanding a nonconforming use, the Secretary stated
that Howe Fertilizer, Inc. is a nonconforming use, not listed as a permitted or a
special -use in the I-2 zoning district. Moreover, he said, the City's Comprehensive
Policy Statement relating to the fertilizer plant advises the City Council to pro-
hibit any further expansion of the operation and if it all feasible, to relocate
the fertilizer operation to a more compatible site.
As to whether the City could allow a variance from the ordinance in permitting
a nonconforming use, the Secretary cited Section 35-240, 2 of the Zoning Ordinance
which states:
3-22-79 -1
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 distinctive 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 qualifications
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 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 detrimental to the
public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements
in the neighborhood in which the. parcel of land is located.
Tt wnuld annear inconsistent. the Secretary argued. to recommend the buildin4 be
allowed to' 6e reconstructed in light of the policy of eventual relocation outlined
in the Comprehensive Plan. To allow reconstruction of the building in question',' or
any other building following its total destruction by 'fire, he argued, would seem
to prolong the life of the nonconforming use and, therefore, be contradictory
to this relocation policy. An amendment to. the Comprehensive Plan, he said, would
have to be undertaken to rectify this inconsistency.
As to the variance from the existing setback and buffer requirements, the Secretary
again argued that applying the Standards for Variances to the situation at hand
would result in a recommendation to deny the variance request. Neither the
standards for hardship nor uniqueness can be demonstrated, he said, and to build
the building at other than these minimum requirements would be considered detri-
mental to the public welfare and injurious to other land or improvements in the -
neighborhood in which the parcel is located.
In response to questions from members of the Planning Commission,"The Secretary
explained the proposed building was similar in size to the old one with the
exception of the additional underground storage area. It is of roughly- the same
height, and that the new building would lie further to the north thereby aggrev-
ating setback requirements. Commissioner Theis asked whether the previous building
had met the setback requirements in force at the time it was constructed. The
Secretary answered that he was not sure.
In response to a question from Commissioner Hawes the Secretary illustrated how
the proposed building could be built to meet present setback requirements. He
allowed that it would have to be set at an angle almost perpendicular to the
proposed location.
3-22-79 -2-
In answer to questions from Commissioner Theis, the Secretary explained the land
adjacent to the northeast of the Howe site was highway property, but that the
roadway for Brooklyn Boulevard is placed considerably east of the Howe property
line. Chairman Pierce asked whether the frontage road shown on the drawings was
maintained by the State. The Secretary responded that it was. Commissioner Hawes
asked whether consideration had been given to adding blacktopped area in the plan.
The Secretary replied it had not because staff had advised the applicant to keep
the initial proposal as simple as possible. He also stated that the area desig-
nated for greenstrip could not be used for driveway purposes.
Commissioner Malecki inquired why the building in the proposed plan was set north
of the previous building's location. The Secretary replied that the separation
requirement for a temporary building approved following the fire was set by the
Fire Chief at 25 feet. The new separation requirement, he said, would depend on
the construction of the building and other factors. Chairman Pierce asked whether
a variance would be required to build the new building at the same location as
the previous building. The Secretary replied that such a variance would be
necessary. At that point the City Manager introduced the City Attorney for pur-
poses of reporting to the Commission on the legal status of nonconforming uses,
and to examine the Howe case in light of the legal principles involved. The City
Attorney began by saying that he had not finished his investigation, but that he
wanted to go over the background of nonconforming uses. He reminded the Commiss-
ion that staff reports do not constitute the universe of facts to be considered
in a case, but that the Commission must seek out the facts through rigorous
questioning.
The City Attorney observed that zoning in the United States goes back to only
1926. He stated that while the primary function of cities is for people to live
in them, often incompatible uses exist within cities and they possess property
rights. Under the Constitution, he pointed out, the only way to abridge these
property rights and eliminate incompatible uses was by purchasing the property in
nUectinn. Thic is too Cnctly in mn¢t raQPC; howavPr, onP wav to aet around the
..t. t� 1 L� Ll
exOeliye u I put wla1 1 Ily �./1 u` 11 l l.y w C 1 11111 Ilu l.0 r1 Vv 1 n1 a ..0 I v+.
forming use and thereby keep it from growing. The purpose of the nonconforming
designation, therefore, lies between preserving property rights and phasing out
incompatible uses. In t0is way, he stated, the life of an incompatible use can
be ended when the value of the property for that purpose has been used up. He
pointed out that the City's nonconforming use ordinance is common and„ is not con-
sidered arbitrary. Nonconforming uses can be eliminated.
The City Attorney explained there are two types of nonconformity: nonconformity
as to structural aspects and nonconformity as to use. The courts, he said, do
not generally treat these two kinds of nonconformity differently. Moreover, he
pointed out, Howe is both a nonconforming use and a nonconforming structure.
The City Attorney first dealt with the issues relating to nonconforming structures.
First of all , he stated, the proposed building is nonconforming as to setback. A
variance would be needed to allow this violation and no precedent in Minnesota
law exists for allowing such a variance. He noted, Brooklyn Center does allow
variances if the Standards for a Variance in Chapter 35 are met.. Secondly, he
pointed out, the proposed building represents an expansion of a nonconforming
use. He gave three instances where this was the case: 1 ) by the addition of
the basement storage area; 2) by changing the use of the building over time;
and 3) by improving the building and thereby extending the life of the nonconform-
.i ng use.
3-22-79 -3-
Working in the opposite direction of the issues pertaining to a nonconforming
structure, he said, were issues concerning safety. Normally, he stated, when a
building is entirely destroyed, its use is over. Even if the issues of a noncon-
forming structure were resolved to allow the rebuilding of the same size and type
of building as existed previously, this new building would aggrevate safety con-
siderations. The City Attorney, therefore, stated that a new sprinkling system
---which would pay for itself over time---and dykes to contain spillage could be
required with approval of site and building plans.
Commissioner Theis inquired whether any of the additions for safety could be
outside of the proposed building. The City Attorney answered that he had not yet
considered the possibility of improvements outside the building. Chairman Pierce
asked whether any precedent existed for treating nonconforming structures separ-
ately .from nonconforming uses. The City Attorney responded this indeed was the
crux of the issue, but added that he was not convinced that Howe Fertilizer was,
in fact, a nonconforming use. A valid nonconforming use, he stated, is one which
was legal when it was constructed, but which became nonconforming at some point
later on. If it was never allowed, he explained, then it is simply a zoning
violation. Further research into the past history of Howe Fertilizer and the
City's Zoning Ordinances, he said, is necessary to determine the exact legal
status of Howe, Inc. If Howe, Inc. is simply a zoning violation, he added, then
any additions to the complex are simply more zoning violations.
The City Attorney went on to discuss conditions for rebuilding. If the building
is part of a complex, he said it must be a vital part of the total operation for
the Council to allow it to be reconstructed. In order to decide this the Commis-
sion must determine what went on in the destroyed building and how it fits into the
Howe operation. He also said that if the destroyed building were originally built
to store equipment, but later was used to store chemicals, the new building must
be built only for the purpose of storing vehicles, the original use. Another
p3talitIul vi uic ;ivvvc upcia6luil a Ilvlll.VllFul-III;fly JbaLUJ, iie Jdlu, would
be the change in the manufacturing process which would have a different impact
on the neighborhood. He gave an example of a man repairing three cars a week in
his garage and over time this became 103 cars per week, but added that the courts
have not dealt with the change in use issue. He concluded by saying the City's
Nonconforming Use Section conforms to rulings by the courts.
Commissioner Manson raised the case of the motel in which' a couple of rooms were
destroyed by fire and were not rebuilt. Since the motel was a nonconforming
use, she wondered whether there was any precedent for disallowing an expansion
of a nonconforming Use. The City Attorney replied that no similarity could be
drawn to the Howe case since the City Council ruled in that case that less than
60% of the building was destroyed and allowed reconstruction; but the owner
chose not to rebuild. Commissioner Theis asked how great a change in the manu-
facturing process must take place for it to constitute an expansion of a noncon-
forming use. The City Attorney could not cite any cases on that point, but
offered the theory that if the Howe operation became nonconforming when it was
producing organic fertilizer, the change to chemical fertilizer would constitute
an expansion of a nonconforming use. A dramatic change in volume, he said, would
be similar. Commissioner Hawes asked for a clarification of the 60% rule (refer-
ring to the rule that if a nonconforming use is destroyed to the extent of 60%,
it may not be rebuilt) . The City Attorney responded that"the 60% rule always
applies. The issue is whether it applies to the entire business or whether it
can be applied to a single' building. He explained that if the building in
question were inseparable from the business, then the business would be the unit
of consideration when applying the 60% rule. If the building were nonessential,
then the building alone would be the unit of consideration. Commissioner Lucht
voiced his concern about the inconsistency of allowing the storage of fertilizer
in C2 zones while prohibiting it in I-2 zones. If the proposed building were
only for storage, the City Attorney replied, then it could likely be permitted.
3-22-79 -4-
Commissioner Hawes asked whether the plans showed overhead doors on the west
end of the proposed building and a blacktopped drive-around area. Tom Howe
answered that it did. Commissioner Hawes noted that the plans therefore en-
visioned a further encroachment into the 100 foot buffer area.
At that point, the City Manager reported that reports by the fire safety consult-
ant and by the explosives consultant had been received. A report by the engineer-
ing consultant on the storage of hazardous chemicals was expected the following
week. He stated that the initial findings of the explosives consultant were
that existing regulations pertaining to explosives are currently being met by
Howe Fertilizer. He added a dynamiting permit, :which must be appproved by the
City Council , would likely be on the Council 's agenda in April . The City Manager
also advised the Planning Commission not to be concerned with the possibility of
a law suit in deciding the case at hand since the likelihood of a law suit was
about equal regardless of what decision was made.
The City Manager framed the issue as being a decision whether the Howe operation
can be modified to approximate the level of annoyance of other I-2 uses or
whether Howe cannot be so modified as to become a compatible use in the neighbor=
hood. For now, he said, City staff had reached the judgment that the building
cannot be rebuilt as proposed because it would extend the life of the facilities
on the site, and that a building meeting current setback requirements could be
proposed in place of the plan submitted.
Commissioner Lucht asked why the proposed building would not be a permitted use
if warehouses are permitted uses in I-2 zones. The City Attorney added that the
case at hand involved a site with a use and an accessory use to the main use.
The use of separate buildings could not be separated from the use of the site as
a whole.
Commissioner Malecki asked for a clarification from the City Manager on what
"making Howe more compatible" would mean. The City Manager answered that the
manufacturing processes might be changed to make it more like other I-2 uses,
the nature of a compatible manufacturing process would have to be determined,
he said, and this process could potentially be tied to the approval of the pro-
posed building. Chairman Pierce asked whether this meant Howe could become a
permitted use. The City Manager responded that the Planning Commission and City
Council must determine whether Howe Fertilizer can become comparable to other
I-2 uses which are permitted in its level of annoyance. He added to allow the
safe storage of the chemicals on the site could require significant upgrading of
the site. Commissioner Theis commented that to use the approval of the building
as a lever to force needed improvements would result in expanding a nonconforming
use. The City Manager suggested that a judgment would have to be made as to the
status of the nonconforming property when the proposed improvements were allowed.
Chairman Pierce then asked the applicant to speak on the issues raised. The
applicant's attorney, James Russell , complained that a comprehensive presentation
of the applicant's arguments could not be made at this time because they had not
received any of the reports pertaining to the case before the meeting. In con-
nection with the report submitted by Secretary Ronald Warren, Mr. Russell stated
that there were three matters on which he differed: 1 ) that a variance is pro-
hibited for a nonconforming use; 2) that the plan recommendation for phasing out
the Howe operation had any bearing on the case; and 3) that a 50' setback was
required from State owned property.
Concerning the setback from State owned property, Mr. Russell argued that since
that property contains the entrance road to the Howe site, and since the entrance
road is not a major thoroughfare, a 50 ft. setback was not required. He added
that the wider separation between the middle building and the north building
had been proposed because the Fire Chief indicated a wider separation was needed.
3-22-79 -5-
Mr. Russell explained that over the years, certain additions to the buildings on
the site have created traffic patterns which affect the operation of the business.
To encroach on the traffic pattern by placing buildings in a different position,
he maintained, would create a hardship. Furthermore, he stated, the dust from
the site is not produced by the manufacturing process, but rather by the traffic.
Since the area of the traffic pattern has been blacktopped, he said dust should
no longer be a problem.
He went on to question whether the building that was lost in the fire was, in
fact, a nonconforming use. He admitted that there were some things about the
Howe operation that were nonconforming, but maintained that others were conforming.*
The amoniating process, he said, is where the controversy lies. The amoniating
process, he explained, was installed in 1957 and is the same today, but the per-
centage of product that is amoniated is decreasing in recent years . In referring
to the City's Zoning Ordinance, he pointed out that the manufacture of chemicals,
warehousing, and storage of vehicles were all permitted uses in the I-2 zone.
Since the lost building was used for storing chemicals, vehicles and dead files,
and for maintenance, it therefore, cannot be a nonconforming use according to the
ordinance, he argued.
The building in question, he went on, is part of a process. People that buy
fertilizers also buy chemicals, he explained, and it is important to have the
building for maintenance because of the varying demands of the seasons.
Mr. Russell said that he did not understand the Comprehensive Plan when it spoke
of rounding out the existing residential neighborhood. If this were really
intended, he asked, why was the property left with an I-2 zoning designation,
rather than rezoned to Rl?
Concerning the 60% rule, Mr. Russell maintained that the rule applies to the
whole complex because disallowing reconstruction would be a taking of property.
He further stated that the rebuilding of a warehouse destroyed by fire was not
the proper occasion to determine whether Howe Fertilizer could remain on the site.
He added that attaching conditions to the approval of the site and building plan
may seem to have practical advantages to the staff, but that the merits of the
case stand apart from the conditions which might be attached. The building
should either be allowed or not.
Mr. Russell disagreed with the City Attorney that a change in the manufacturing
process could be grounds for disallowing the continuation of a nonconforming use.
He stated that this raises a constitutional question as to taking the property.
He expressed his feeling that binding Howe, Inc. to a certain dollar volume of
business would constitute a taking of property. He concluded by saying that he
assumed 1967 - the year of adoption of the Comprehensive Plan - was the beginning
of Howe's nonconforming status.
In response to questions from Commissioner Theis and Chairman Pierce, Mr. Bill
Howe stated that roughly 25% of the entire volume of fertilizer sold was subject
to the amoniating process, but that there was a possibility this process would
eventually come to an end.
Commissioner Hawes stated that it seemed Mr. Russell was including the building
as part of the entire business when arguing against the 60% rule and yet spoke
of the proposed building as a separate entity when considering its use. Mr.
Russell answered that the uses proposed for the building are conforming and that
approval of reconstruction could be argued on either basis. Commenting on the
Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Russell stated that the residents of the area are misled
by it into thinking that the site would be changed to Rl . The property is
presently zoned I-2, he said, and ought to remain that way.
3-22-79 -6-
i
Responding on behalf of the Comprehensive Plan, the City Attorney reminded the
Commission that rezonings are granted on a case-by-case basis as they are applied
for. He added that the Zoning Ordinance of Brooklyn Center has excluded ferti
liter manufacturing at least since 1957. Mr. Russell countered that to rezone
the property from I-2 to R-1 would be a taking of property since it would
diminish its value. The City Attorney responded that he did not agree with Mr.
Russell 's conclusion.
A discussion then ensued in which Mr. Russell and Tom Howe answered a number of
questions put by Commissioner Hawes. Mr. Russell explained that the market for
Howe Fertilizer was mostly in Minnesota. He explained that all modes of trans-
portion were utilized in transporting materials to and from the Howe site, and
that one of the advantages to the present site was its access to a number of
transport facilities. Commission Hawes remarked that other sites possessed
these advantages and that relocating, therefore, .was not impossible.
Mr. Al Breezer,of the Industrial Development Department of the Soo Line Railroad,
spoke in favor of the proposed rebuilding. He stated that industrial uses make
a good buffer zone between R1 development and the railroad. In response to
questions from Commissioner Hawes, Mr. Breezer stated that there would be certain
problems in providing service to Howe, Inc. at another site relative to being
within the switching zone.
PUBLIC HEARING
Chairman Pierce then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Mr. Roy Pearson,
of 4950 Abbott Avenue North, disputed the claim of Mr. Breezer stating that the
proximity of the railroad was irrelevant since residential development exists
next to the railroad right now. He also pointed out that Howe, Inc. has changed
r
ovetime from a potato bagging operation to the present chemical fertilizer
ruartu actul trig opera t iGn at Whe 31 t,c wuuy . rig Loo :luwv , ., .,.. ..J
bouievara, gave a iengtny reminiscence or the aangers associaLea W1 L11 iiviny
near Howe Fertilizer over the past 25 years. He complained that many of the
vehicles that should have been stored in the old building were left outside,
that there was- no cooperation between Howe, Inc. and the neighborhood, that the
amonia fumes were so bad that gardens were burned out as a result, and that areas
which were supposed to be sodded were now covered with weeds.
Mr. Paul Newton, of 4707 Washburn Avenue North, Minneapolis, stated that the con-
tractor for Howe Fertilizer told neighbors 30 years ago that the fertilizer
business would be moving out of the area. Mr. Newton related dangers experienced
during the recent fire and questioned what would be required of the neighborhood
in case of a full scale disaster. He concluded by pointing out that the Howe
Fertilizer Company had attempted to get into New Hope and Plymouth and were turned-
down. Why, he asked, should they be allowed in Brooklyn Center?
Mr. Virgil Linn, of 3112 - 49th Avenue North, addressed the Commission with a
number of neighborhood concerns. He first pointed out that moving the building
further north would move it closer to his property and would also cause truck
traffic to pass nearer to his house. He argued that while the manufacturing
process may have changed as Mr. Russell pointed out earlier, the changes may bring
new potential problems. He cited fugitive dust, truck traffic, noise at odd hours
and dynamiting as problems which seem to be getting worse, rather than better.
Although changes may be coming, he argued, he had no obligation to wait for exist-
ing annoyances to go away. He also pointed out that the volume of chemicals at
the Howe site is much greater than the volume of such chemicals found in the
fertilizer at any hardware store.
3-22-79 -7-
Alice Rainville, 4th Ward Alderwoman from Minneapolis, addressed the Commission
saying that her neighborhood group had sent her to the Brooklyn Center Planning
Commission meeting to oppose any rebuilding of the Howe Fertilizer warehouse.
She characterized Mayor Dean Nyquist's attitude in a telephone conversation with
her earlier that day as "rude and abrupt.' Her parting advice to the residents
gathered was that they should ask their elected officials to direct the City
Attorney to defend the people's position in court, if necessary, against Howe
Fertilizer.
The resident of 4706 Xerxes Avenue North commented on the January 6th fire and
the safety aspects of the chemical storage and added that dynamite should not be
stored on the site.
Mr. Mary Reich, of 3141 - 49th Avenue North, presented the Commission with a bottle
of water gathered near the Howe site and asked that it be tested. He stated that
a drainage problem has -existed since the Soo Line moved the track servicing Howe,
Inc. Mrs. Eileen Scott, of 2704 - 44th Avenue North, complained that the smell
from Howe Fertilizer is so bad, four to five blocks away, that she cannot sit
out on her porch. She also stated that a sprinkling system would be worthless
in a chemical fire, and that Minneapolis residents must drink the water flowing,
from Ryan Creek into the Mississippi River and are, therefore, very concerned
about drainage from the Howe site. Mr. Fred Fournier, of 4900 Zenith Avenue
North, argued that the case should be decided on the basis of the Comprehensive
Plan and the Zoning Ordinance which currently stipulated that the Howe Fertilizer
operation is to be phased out. Paul Newton stated a number of complaints. He
argued that whether the State paid the cleanup bill or whether Howe, Inc. paid
the cleanup bill and took it as a tax write-off, the taxpayers would wind up sub-
sidizing the company for its cleanup responsibilities. He said that the annoyance
moves around depending on which way the wind was blowing and concluded that the
area in which Howe Fertilizer was located was simply wrong for that type of
him i nacc
Mr. Robert Wirth, of 490h Zenith Avenue North, asked whether two chemicals mixing
together could cause an explosion and whether this might be the cause of the
recent fire. The City Manager answered that the State Fire Marshal had not yet
determined the cause of the fire. In answer to another question from Mr. Wirth,
the City Manager stated that tests taken along the smoke path indicate that no
contaminants were found at levels that would be harmful to human health. The
resident of 3205 - 49th Avenue North, asked about the well closings. The City
Manager responded that no contamination in wells had been found, but that some
had been closed as a precautionary measure.
Mary Dodds, of 4730 Xerxes Avenue North, Minneapolis, reported that David Gray,
of the State Board of Health, says that there is contamination. At this point,
Mrs. Rainville voiced some lack of confidence in the State's handling of the.
matter and questioned whether the method currently being used to collect well
samples would dilute the results. In response to Mary Dodds ' concerns about the
Fire Department cleanup, the City Manager explained that run-off from the site
needed to be reduced to one part per million and that the timing of the cleanup
was in response to a request by the State PCA. Mrs. Dodds ' argued that Howe, Inc. -
should be phased out because she receives amonia fumes from blocks away and is
worried that amonia scars lung tissue.
An unidentified person who had lost one leg as a result of a blood clot, talked
about the dangers of poisons and warned that poisons enter people's systems
through the food they eat as a result of such things as chemical fertilizers.
Mr. Murto, of 3205 - 49th Ave. North, asked the City Manager why the water
problem in the private wells had not been solved. The City Manager responded
that the problem was being addressed and that he would check on it. Mr: Newton
voiced his concern about the use of dynamite near tank cars on the railroad tracks.
3-22-79 -8-
Chairman Pierce asked whether anyone else desired to speak.
Tom Howe rose to address the residents concerns. He perceived three basic
concerns:
1 . Concerns growing out of the fire.
2. Concerns over the production process at Howe, Inc.
3. Problems related to industry, in general . ,
He stated that truck traffic is generally associated with any kind of industrial
use. He pointed out a number of safety concerns which Howe, Inc. has acted on.
The company, he said, does not use anhydrous amonia out of concern for safety;
it has blacktopped the driving area in order to reduce the dust problem; and the
company has instal-led new technology in the area of pollution control as soon as
the technology was available. He stated that the company's attitude was oriented
to production and problem solving, that they would like to stay in Brooklyn Center,
that he himself lives in the neighborhood, and that Howe, Inc. is in compliance
with all requirements of the PCA.
Agriculture, he argued, is suffering from the fire at Howe, Inc. because people
are afraid of the chemicals. These chemicals stored at Howe Fertilizer, he said,
are designed to break up in the soil , are approved by the EPA, and are used widely
by farmers every day. He made the point that everything has a toxicity if you
get enough of it in one place, and that exact levels of toxicity have only recently
been established for many things because of the difficult measuring requirements
involved.
Mr. Wirth asked why it was necessary to send the snow to a special place if it
did not contain toxic contaminants. The City Manager responded that he had
oarlia" rofcvrvrcrl to cnnhf in the nath of the CmnkP and tPCtC from air faflnllt WP.re
fw9aLIVC.V I`II WIl Lh QJIICU &UOut ii1C {.song o Vi.% y� vui�u rruv�� iii �lic. 6a� caa. T"z
City Manager replied that Barr Engineering was still taking tests of ground water
in the area and that the greatest danger was felt to be near the railroad. A
final report on ground water was expected by May 1 , 1979.
Mr. Cashin, of 3427 - 49th Avenue North, a chemist, warned City officials to read
the labels on the chemicals stored at Howe Fertilizer. For his own part, he
stated, he would never use them on his own lawn although he would use them on a
farm. The chemicals at Howe Fertilizer, he maintained, are extremely dangerous
and EPA approval , he warned, is only applicable if the chemicals are used at safe
levels. He summed up the issue as a determination of where the constitutional
rights of one person ended and another began.
The City Manager asked the applicant whether he had any other site in mind for
expansion of his plant. Mr. Russell , the attorney for the applicant, answered
that the company was considering a site in Maple Grove in an industrial park.
Commissioner Hawes asked the railroad representative whether cars are labeled if
they are carrying toxic substances.
Commissioner Hawes asked whether Howe Fertilizer used amonium nitrate. Tom Howe
replied that they did.
CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING
Motion by Commissioner Malecki seconded by Commissioner Theis to close the public
hearing. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes,
Manson and Lucht. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
3-22-79 -9-
Chairman Pierce outlined a procedure he felt was appropriate in deciding the
issue:
1 . Will the building be.allowed?
2. Will a variance be granted to allow construction at other than
present setback requirements?
3. Site and building plan approval .
Commissioner Hawes asked whether the matter needed to go to the neighborhood
advisory group. The Secretary responded that it would not be necessary.
Commissioner Theis advised that no decision should be made until the consultants,
reports are in, but added that -he did not think he could approve the building as
presently proposed. Chairman Pierce asked the Secretary what parking requirements
would be applied to the Howe application. The Secretary answered that parking
requirements depend on square footage plus the number of employees. The City
Manager gave the Commission the assurance that a parking analysis would be in-
cluded in the site and building plan.
MOTION TO TABLE APPLICATION NOS. 79016 and 79017 (Howe, Inc.)
After a discussion of the Commissions upcoming schedule, there was a motion by
Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Manson to table Application Nos. 79016
and 79017 until April 19, 1979. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commissioners
Hawes, Manson,Lucht, Malecki and Theis. Voting against: none. The motion passed.
Mr. Virgil Linn inquired whether an open hearing would be held at the meeting on
April .19, 1979. Chairman Pierce stated that a hearing would be for the new -
,,f3.........1�._ .L..._-11_.l L.
; IIlu arIV 11 JN✓1111 1.yt,.V ✓,Y ylINV {,1Illl-::. -
ADJOURNMENT
Motion by Commissioner Hawes seconded by Commissioner Malecki to adjourn the
meeting of the Planning Commission. Voting in favor: Chairman Pierce, Commis-
sioners Malecki , Theis, Hawes, Mansor. and Lucht. Voting against: none. The
motion passed. The Planning Commission adjourned at 12:03 p.m.
Chairman
3-22-79 -10-