Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977 11-10 PCP PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 10, 1977 1 . Call to Order: 7:30 p.m. • 2. Roll Call : 3. ' Approval of Minutes: 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 recornmendations to the City Council . The City Council makes all final decisions on these matters. 5. Dayton's, Inc. 77059 Plan approval for accessory building at Dayton 's Service Station, 2605 County Road 10 (Brookdale) 6. Dayton Hudson Properties, Inc. 77060 Preliminary Registered Land Survey for Brookdale Center. Board of Adjustments and Appeals 7. Gene Hamilton 77064 Appeal from administrative ruling regarding accessory structure erected at 6230 Lee Avenue • North. Planning Commission 8. Howe, Inc. 77037 Rezone, from R-1 to I-2, property at 3129 and 3135 - 49th Avenue North (item tabled on August 25, 1977) . 9. Howe, Inc. 77038 Site and Building Plan Approval for additions and improvements at Howe Fertilizer Company, 4821 Xerxes Avenue North. 10. Olympic Investments, Inc . 76029 Review amended building exterior plans for apartments at 67th and Emerson Avenue North approved June 14, 1976. 11 . Discussion Items: a. Metro Land Planning Act and Comprehensive Plan b. Miss4ssippi River Critical Area Planning c. Application No. 77034 d. Neighborhood Group Members e. Pending Items 12. Other Business: 13. Adjournment: Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77059 Applicant: Dayton's, Inc. Location: 2605 County Road 10 (Brookdale Shopping Center) Request: Plan Approval for Accessory Structure at a Service Station The Zoning Ordinance requires plan approval for all structural improvements in- cluding accessory buildings at service stations, and the applicant is proposing a wooden enclosure adjacent to the existing concrete accessory building. The use of the proposed structure would be to house water softener salt pellets which would be sold at the service station. The structure is very similar to that erected on the south side of the Brookdale Super Valu Grocery Store approximately one year ago. Approval is recommended subject to the condition that all outside storage and trash disposal facilities shall be appropriately screened and contained within approved accessory structures. • 11-10-77 a i v _ a tv cn C cc . � o Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77060 • Applicant: Dayton Hudson Corporation Location: Brookdale Shopping Center Request: Preliminary Registered Land Survey Approval The applicant is proposing a registered land survey constituting an effective replat of the entire Brookdale Shopping Center. The new registered land survey consists of six Tracts, one of which includes the Mall and all of the parking areas except for the portions owned by Sears and Donaldson 's; another Tract comprehends the Penney's Department Store; another includes the Daytons Department Store; and another includes the Penney's Automotive Service Building; another Tract is a small residual parcel , apparently a remnant of the County Road 10 right-of-way which is acknowledged by the County as being a residual parcel ; and the final Tract includes all the Dayton Hudson owned land east of Shingle Creek with exception of the Ground Round Restaurant site and the common parking area, both of which were comprehended by a registered land survey approved last year. The Sears Department Store Automotive Accessory Building and parking lot are contained within an existing Tract, as is the case with the Donaldsons Department Automotive Accessory Building and surrounding parking lot. The proposed R.L.S. represents a substantial clarification for tax and legal descriptive purposes and approval is recommended subject to the following conditions : 1 . Final R.L.S. is subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 2. Final R.L .S. is subject to the requirements of Chapter 15 of the City Ordinances. 11-10-77 I8 eeJ! \ • `\ o lzj III ,O\N\- CL Ini C1 ��=:• •i EV ... ��+,�fl•��. � t Aw 90: `ms's`♦'` � 5. • ';e !L `I- >»•.i ' Ai\ `♦` eye to DA_ •y � A\Cvs \ \ ti. it t— °� \a'p`_y'N � v^°s!,,•' '%yp\ \ "'s` ♦' oao 'S''3'. A / • s e e M• , / •L` as i. �\' - r a g• r / ' '! ~^, J'�,f /i'r Aj.•,•i tp'� :\9 � Lam\ S 1A f. —, i� A-• �!' .�y'' c': tiff. }\ �r• eu • 1.60 GO Genf. C. �.: '�.,/�{'� ; S o� �i �� •i./ °o`A• \``v 11 1 ! *+\\\ - ''„te "...G Y Cy' ���'2 9`0e'\/ re?i ;`0� �Mg1•� �'' ;Y°(' \at :. IN .. 1 ' :;,o"oa 8 1�4kiiO}+ed` Ui 'Z •,•, r \ +"`s 4•'. \ . p .� , ,\`\��,y-D � ,y��Ar.. `ter• y� '\ .'i ' ,\`,\ •�' •.ter 6:`t- 6 % • / �• ` \ � � 1,'A• ';�,rte p,,•'e, . . i \�\ �} � .F�•+'Af 4t y y6 a.. ` bo � ;;, t �• Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77064 Applicant: Mr. and Mrs . Gene Hamilton • Location: 6230 Lee Avenue North Request: Appeal of Administrative Ruling The applicant has filed an appeal per Section 35-251 of the Zoning Ordinance based upon a determination by the Building Official that an accessory structure erected by the applicant without a permit cannot be permitted since it encroaches 20 feet into the front yard setback. The open-sided structure which is attached to the front of the applicant's house in front of a tuck-under garage is by its common use definition, Building Code definition, and by the applicant's description, a carport. Carports are permitted accessory uses within the established setbacks of the Zoning Ordinance and the construction requirements of the Building Code. The applicant, upon notification that the structure is in violation of the City Ordinances because it was erected without a permit and furthermore, because it encroaches into the minimum front yard setback, contends that the structure can also be defined as a canopy and therefore, is specifically excepted by the Zoning Ordinance as an en- croachment into the front yard. The applicant's references to Section 35-400 (8) which states: The following shall not be considered as encroachments on yard setback requirements : In any yards: off-street open parking spaces; terraces; awnings; canopies; steps not exceeding 10% of the area of the yard; chimneys, flagpoles; air conditioner • condensers; fences, hedges, or walls provided they shall not exceed four feet in height in front, side, or rear yardsabutting streets and provided they do not impede vision within the sight triangle described in Section 35- 560. The City's position is that the structure is clearly an accessory building defined by its use and design and location as a carport; and, further that carports are not canopies within the normal accepted use of the term. Attached is a letter from this department to the applicant stating the circumstances and the situation and also, a written explanation of the appeal submitted by the applicant. The courses of action which could be taken in resolution of this appeal are as follows: 1 . Denial of the appeal and upholding the ruling by the Building Official . This finding would be based upon the determination that what the applicant has erected is in fact, a carport representing an accessory structure which is encroaching into the front yard setback. Based upon conversations with the applicant, we would expect that he ultimately would proceed to request a variance allowing this encroachment. This finding would in effect be equating the subject carport with accessory buildings in general • including garages and a variance to allow the encroachment of a garage into a front yard would raise the substantive issue of the integrity of front yard setbacks. i 11-10-77 Application No. 77064 continued • �. Uphold the appeal and disallow the administrative ruling. This could be based on one of two findings: a. That the structure can be equated with a canopy and, therefore, it is not considered an encroachment into a front yard setback (or any yard setback, per Section 35-400 (8) . b. That carports which would be specifically defined so to differentiate them from enclosed garage-type accessory buildings would be deemed similar to canopies , and within certain defined limits such as 20 feet would not be considered encroachments . The appeal has raised the fact that the Zoning Ordinance does not define nor does it make any reference to carports; it is recommended that if this and similar open structures which are clearly carports as defined by use and Building Code definition are to be permitted, then it is essential to adopt amendatory language which not only defines carport (and canopies for that matter) , but also establishes setback standards for such structures . This is essential unless the Commission and City Council are prepared to allow any type of accessory structure to extend into the front yard - including standard size garages . We will be prepared to present further research conducted on this matter, and we will have prepared draft ordinance language comprehding definition • and regulation of carports as accessory structures. We cannot at this time, however, fully endorse this route pending full discussion and analysis by the Commission and Council because of the concern as to precedent that would be established. While this matter is an appeal and not a formal variance request, it is significant to note that the applicant's is not unique and in fact represents a housing style similar to most rambler type dwellings and particularly those with tuck-under garages. Incidentally, upon the applicant's reference to several other carports in the City, we field checked them and found that they are within the ordinance minimum setback requirements. We would recommend that the Commission take the opportunity to observe the subject structure on the applicant's premises prior to the meeting. 11-10-77 STATE OF MINNESOTA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER COUNTY OF HENNEPIN BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND APPEALS Susan H. and Gene E. Hamilton PETITION FOR VARIANCE OR 6230 Lee Avenue North APPEAL FROM ORDER Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55429 Petitioners -------- The above petitioners hereby request a variance or appeal from order, which ever might apply, on the property named above legally described as: Plat 89241 Parcel 0900 Section 3 Block l The variance or appeal would be to accomodate an aluminum canopy or awning used as protection for a car. (See attachment A) • The variance would be with regard to Section 35-400, Brooklyn Center Zoning Ordinance, in the amount of 20 feet from the front yard setback. The above mentioned house is 35 feet from the front lot line, but in effect is 50 feet from the blacktop street. (See attachment B) The appeal would apply to Section 35-400 (8) (a) which speaks to situations that would not be considered encroachments on yard setback requirements. Our belief is that the shelter for our car described above would fit the canopy or awning classification. It is a bolted on structure. Definitions of canopy are: Websters Third New International Dictionary: Canopy: l : a covering usually for shelter or protection. 1, d.: a temporary or permanant cover providing shelter and decoration (as over a door or window.) f.: an awning or marquee often stretching from doorway to curb. I 3.: an ornamental rooflike structure that provides or suggests shelter and that projects from a wall or is supported by columns. • 1 Macmillan Dictionary: 2.: an overhanging shelter or covering • supported on poles. Thorndike Dictionary: 2.a.: rooflike covering, shelter, shade. Definitions of awning are: Macmillan Dictionary: A rooflike cover of can-as or other material, as over a door or window, used as a shelter from the sun or rain. Thorndike Dictionary: A piece of canvas,or other material . spread over or before a door, window. or porch, etc. Awnings are used for protection from the sun or rain. Webster Dictionary: 1: can-as roofline cover extending o-er or before any place as a shelter from the sun, rain. or wind. The canopy described above does not impede -ision within the sight triangle described in Section Y-560 as the aforementioned property is not a corner lot. • Most of the above definitions do form a "word picture" of the structure. Cars today are much more a necessity than they were in the past. Two cars operated daily are very common, yet, at the time the house described above was built this was not so true. Due to the placement of the house on the lot, side setbacks, numerous trees, and lack of alleys it would be impossible to constru,t a detached garage in the rear and have access to it by a car. For safety the canopy above was constructed. It does pro- ide protection for the vehicle from dew, frost and later this winter sleet and snow. We all know the dangerous situation that frost and sleet can present on an unprotected car-- Sometimes even afte$ a great deal of time scraping windows visibility can still be seriously obstructed. When a car.is used on a daily basis these situations number • many times during the eight months of dew, sleet, and frost weather we have in Minnesota. 2 1 We feel that strict enforcement of this setback requirement applied to a canopy is not in the best interest of safety to at least these residents of Brooklyn Center, All fourteen (14) abutting property owners have signed a petition (Attachment C) indicating and acknowledging their approval of such a structure and/or variance, I We are sure it is not the intent of the city through its ordinances to inflict undo suffering to its property owners when a variance or appeal can provide relief without any hardship on others, especially, immediate neighbors. In fact several commented they thought it beautified and added to the house and neighborhood by breaking up the"look alike" appearance of tract homes built at that time and in this area. There are LLmore or less alike split level homes on the two block stretch of Lee Avenue between 61st and 63rd Avenue. • Because of its setback from the blacktop of 50 feet the canopy presence is hardly visable from the south when traveling on Lee Avenue and barely visable, due to shrubbery and trees from the north, (Attachment D) We therefore ask that an appeal be granted with regards to the order according to Section 35-251 (1) (b), or A variance be granted according to section 35-240, ' - Z,.� usa(h Ha Iton ne E, ftamilton 3 E N � 5 j j (p23o LE� s 0 a u y W (, try z 0ut-Ev X20 h C�abssS � pLRcKrO,P LEG U � QTY QpuL EVAkO CGRAss) Attachment B e • 1 October 28, 1977 Mr. and Mrs. Gene Hamilton 6230 Lee Avenue North Brooklyn Center, MN 55429 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton: I am taking this opportunity to thank you for your time in coming in to discuss the matter relative to your carport. You have submitted an application appealing our administrative ruling that a building permit cannot be issued for a carport in this location since it represents an encroachment into the required minimum front yard setback. This letter is to acknowledge receipt of your application and to set forth the status of the matter pending your appeal . There are two distinct, yet related, facets to this situation: . 1 . Building Code Violation. The structure was erected without a required building permit. This is a violation of the City Building Code which, at Section 3-103, provides that no person shall erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, improve, remove, convert, move or demolish any building or structure in the City, or cause the same to be done without first obtaining an appropriate permit from the Building Official . It was for this violation that the Building Official tagged the structure with a violation notice (since you were not home at the time of his inspection) . Your response to his notice last week would normally be taken as a post-facto request for a building permit. Building Official Will Dahn determined, however, that the structure which is clearly intended as a carport, was encroaching into the minimum front yard setback by approximately 20 feet and that there- fore, a building permit could not be issued for that structure since it does not conform with the Zoning Ordinance. 2. Zoning Ordinance Provisions. It is our interpretation of the oning Ordinance that your carport is an accessory building within the definit4ons set forth in Section 35-900 of the Zoning Ordinance (Building - any structure erected for the support, shelter, or enclosure of persons, animals, chattels, or movable property of any kind; Accessory Building - a building which is used in re- lation to an accessory use; the accessory use in this case is ` off-street parking) . i • Mr. and Mrs. Gene Hamilton Page 2 October 28, 1977 Section 35-400 of the Zoning Ordinance states that every use of land within the City shall conform to the listed minimum requirements applicable to the land use district in which the use is contemplated. In the R-1 zoning district the minimum front yard setback, i .e. , the distance from your property line to the building, is 35 feet. Section 35-400 (8) states that, among other things, off-street open spaces, awnings, and canopies shall not be considered as encroachment on yard setback requirements in any yards. Your petition for appeal indicates that you contend your carport structure is a canopy and, therefore, does not represent an encroach- ment into the front yard setback. Our ruling is that the structure, by your definition and by its use, is a carport and an accessory building, as distinguished from a canopy or awning-like device, and, therefore, is an encroachment into the front yard setback. Finally, I wish to confirm our conversation of Wednesday, October 26 relative to our understanding that the Building Official 's order for removal of the structure, per the Building Code requirements, shall be temporarily held in abeyance pending the resolution of the above zoning appeal . It is understood that, should your appeal be successful , you will apply for the appropriate building permit providing the necessary information and specifications as set forth in the Building Code. It is also understood that, should your appeal not be successful , the order for abatement of the Building Code violation will be enforced with compliance consisting of removal of the carport structure within a reasonable time established by the Building Official . You will be notified, in writing, of the scheduled hearing for your appeal before the Planning Commission and before the City Council . Thank you for your attention. Questions regarding this matter should be directed to this office. Sincerely, Blair Tremere Director of Planning and Inspection BT:m19 cc: File 16064 Planning Commission Information Sheet Applications No. 77037 and 77038 Applicant: Howe, Inc. Location: 3129 and 3135 - 49th Avenue North (Howe, Inc. plant location is 4821 Xerxes Avenue North) Request: Rezoning and site and building plan approval Both applications were considered at the August 25, 1977 meeting and were tabled to permit the development or= additional information and to refer the rezoning request to the Southwest Neighborhood Group for review and comment. The applicant seeks rezoning,from R-1 (Single Family Residential ) to I-2 (General Industry) , of the two lots immediately west of the Howe Fertilizer site. Both properties are owned by Howe, Inc. and each contains a single family dwelling. The proposed rezoning is essential to the site and building plans submitted by the applicant. The applicant's proposal is founded on the proposition that if he is permitted to expand and upgrade his existing industrial operation, certain benefits will be realized by the surround- ing neighborhood and by the community, namely, the installation of required buffer greenstrips and the paving, curbing and landscaping of the site in general . The rezoning request should be evaluated according to the recently approved rezoning evaluation criteria. The basic concern of those criteria is whether the zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which at page 67, states: Recognize the existing fertilizer plant and other nonresidential uses located just off Osseo Road next to the Soo Line Railroad, but prohibit any further expansion of their operation. If at all feasible, the eventual relocation of the uses to more compatible sites should be undertaken thereby permitting a rounding-out of the existing residential area. Before the proposed rezoning could be approved, it is essential that the Comprehensive Plan guideline be revised or eliminated. If the Comprehensive Plan is to be amended, the Zoning Ordinance establishes a procedure for a public hearing ten-day advance publication in the legal newspaper, In other words, if the decision by the Commission is. to recommend approval of the request and to recommend an amendment to the Compre- hensive Plan, it would be necessary to again table the item until the required public hearing on the Comprehensive Plan Amendment was held. We discussed with the Commission at the August 25th meeting and with the Southwest Neighborhood Group that a key determination in this matter i5 whether the benefits derived from bringing the Howe Fertilizer operation into compliance with minimum ordinance standards is more in the public interest than achieving a long-term planning goal of phasing out the operation by limiting or even prohibiting expansion such as that proposed. Specifically, a determination should be made whether the proposed rezoning and related site and building plans represent a "expansion of the operation" versus an upgrading of the existing operation. The Southwest Neighborhood Group has submitted a written recommendation and a copy is attached. Also attached is a copy of the basic memorandum submitted by Mr. Bill Howe, dated September 12, 1977 in response to the concerns voiced by the Planning Commission at the August 25 meeting. This basic memo was attached to a substantial amount of supportive data from various industries sources and also included copies of various pollution agency permits and other data. 11-10-77 Application No. 77037 and No. 77038 continued The Southwest Neighborhood Advisory Group also received a petition dated September 13, 1977 from a variety of neighbors and a copy of that petition is also attached. • We have discussed the matter of air pollution with representatives of the City of Minneapolis and of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Attached is a copy of a letter we recently sent to the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and to which we do not have response at this time. It is important here, however, to realize that compliance with established pollution control regulations is to be expected of the applicant's operation notwithstanding the approval or denial of the requested zoning. This is not to diminish the value the rezoning and particularly the site and building plan approval might have in stimulating such compliance, but the issue here is more complex than a simple trade-off with the applicant. There has some been some reference by neighbors and the Neighborhood Advisory Group to past promises made by the applicant certain site improvements, and to the fact that such promises were largely unfulfilled. We have indicated that since the early 1960's when those promises were apparently made, the City has adopted language within the Zoning Ordinance requiring a Performance Agreement and financial guarantee for site improvements. This should not be confused however, with assured compliance with pollution control regulations or other operational aspects of the fertilizer plant. In other words, the zoning control is over site improvements and is not necessarily related to the operational aspects. In that regard we have pursued informally with the State Pollution Control Agency and other municipalities the concept of a licensing procedure which would govern to some extent the operational aspects including compliance with established regulations. We will be prepared to discuss this in further detail at the meeting. Neighboring property owners have been notified of the meeting and they have also been informed that this meeting is not a formal public hearing. It is within the discretion of the Chairman and the Commissioners as to how much time, if any, will be devoted to taking additional testimony concerning the application. Action on Application No. 77038 is contigent upon the approval of Application No. 77037. Finally, some discussion was given at the neighborhood Advisory Group meeting to what the applicant would do if this application were not approved. A representative of of the applicant indicated that the applicant could construct certain buildings within the existing boundaries and within the existing ordinance standards for setbacks and buffer zones . He also stated that such plans had been reviewed by the City and were deemed to be in order. This is not a correct evaluation of the situation. We have reviewed earlier plans with the applicant regarding different buildings within the present boundaries and we indicated to the applicant that variances would be required to acknowledge the existing noncomplying character of the plant and that in the evaluation of those variances and of the site and building plans, the Comprehensive Plan language cited above would be taken in account. 11-10-77 September 12, 1977 To: The Brooklyn Center Planning Commission FYx n: Bill Howe, Vice President �,• Howe, Inc. Subject: Response to the Planning Cannission's request for additional information. Howe Inc. has been asked by the Brooklyn Center Planning Commission to supply additional information about our facility and operation of our plant. Before I respond to each of these items, I feel it necessary to explain what Howe Inc. is all about. Howe , Inc. performs two separate operations within the agricultural industry. The first is the manufacturing and distributing of commercial fertilizers. Fertilizer is used throughout the United States and the World and is responsible to a large degree for the abundant supply and quality of food enjoyed by us all. Fertilizers, like those produced by Howe, Inc. , are responsible for 400 of all food produced in the United States. We are proud of being a part of this industry and of our records for safety and health. The second function we perform is the storage and distribution of agricultural chemicals. These chemicals, like our fertilizers, are purchased and applied by farmers in Minnesota. We receive these chemicals prepackaged. We do not manufacture or repackage any of these chemicals. I would like to respond separately to the first two items requested by the Planning Commission: First-agricultural chemicals and second-fertilizers. . 1.) What types of agricultural chemicals are stored on our premises? 2.) What are the levels of toxicity of these agricultural chemicals? Included in the documents contained in this statement is a list of our agricultural chemicals and quantities on hand as of September 1, 1977. It is important to note that we do not manufacture or alter these chemicals but are only storing and distributing them. Also attached are letters from Dr. Gerald Miller and Dr. Phillip Harein of the University of Minnesota-confirming the safety of handling and storing these chemicals. The toxicity of these chemicals vary from one chemical to another. Attached are toxicity statements and labels for most of the major chemicals we handle. Also included are cover letters from Dow Chemical Co. , Ciba-Geigy Corp. , Dupont, Chevron Chemical Co. and FMC Corp. attesting to the safety of storing and handling these chemicals. All of the chemicals we handle are registered with the Environmental Protection Agency and approved by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, and are stored in an approved facility. Secondly, I will respond to the committee's questions regarding fertilizer materials. 1.) What types of fertilizer materials are stored on our premises? 2.) What are the safety and health hazards of these materials? • Fertilizer is made of three basic materials: Nitrogen, Phosphorus and Potassium. We do not mine and process any of these materials but buy them I - 2 processed ready for use. Potassium is required to sustain plant life, and is essential to human • nutrition. Potassium chloride, the source of potash stored at Howe, Inc. , similar to table salt and is what doctors prescribe for low salt diets case of high blood pressure and related ailments. It is a conmon material used as food for humans and animals as well as fertilizer used for growing food crops. These materials are shipped to us from Canada or Carlsbad, New Mexico. The second element essential for life is phosphorus. Phosphorus is intimately associated with all life processes and is a vital constituent of every living cell. Without phosphorus there could be no life. The phosphorus we store at Howe, Inc. comes from Florida or North Carolina where large deposits of phosphates have accumulated. The third ingredient in the fertilizer we manufacture is nitrogen. Nitrogen is an inert gas which makes up 800 of the air we breath. Plants use nitrogen when it is properly combined with oxygen or hydrogen. In these combined forms it is known as nitrate (NO3) or am onia (NH3) nitorgen. The materials stored by Howe, Inc. are listed below by element source: Potassium: Potassium Chloride - Potassium Magnesium Sulfate Phosphorus: Triple Superphosphate - Diammmnium Phosphate - Phosphoric Acid Nitrogen: Ammnium Sulphate - Ammnium Nitrate - Urea - Low Pressure Nitrogen Solutions - No Pressure Nitrogen Solutions It is important to note we do-mot store or use any anhydrous ammonia. The attached letter from N-Ren Corp. , our supplier of nitrogen materials, • states that they have never shipped anhydrous ammonia to our plant. The letter also states; The products Howe, Inc. uses, "will neither create nor cause environmental or health problems. This conclusion is supported by the demon- strated ability and experience of Howe, Inc. and its employees during the last twenty years.". Also enclosed is a letter fren our medical clinic which treats all our employees, stating they have never treated any Howe, IMc. employee for respiratory or health problems. The enclosed letter from Ed Wheeler of the Fertilizer Institute, an organization which compilies statistics for the fertilizer industry across the United States reads " With hundreds of granulation plants operating in the country, we are aware of no recorded instances of impaired personal health of persons in the surrounding vicinity of these plants. Even for workers within the plant area, we do not know of any documented cases of injury to health.". You will also find copies of letters attached from the Potash Institute, Texasgulf, Inc. (an international supplier of phosphates and potash) and Amax Chemical Corp. (the third largest North American producer and supplier of potash); each stating that fertilizer is a safe natural product which serves the world by producing food. We also have underground storage for distillate fuel. We have a 6,000 gallon storage for gasoline, a 10,000 gallon for dietel fuel and a 10,000 gallon for fuel oil. Also included for your inspection is a licence from the City of Brooklyn Center to pump these fuels from bulk storage. In addition to this, we have an 8,000 gallon sulfuric acid tank, two-30,000 gallon phosphoric acid tanks, three-22,000 gallon low-pressure nitrogen solution tanks and an • 8,000 gallon no pressure nitrogen solution tank. 3.) What measures will be taken to eliminate unauthorized outside trash disposal and debris? - 3 - With any manufacturing facility there is some debris from :normal operations • and maintenance. We will try to keep rubbish and debris to a mirLi.rru -n. However, the screening that is included in our proposal would reduce the visability of the outside trash and debris that can be seen on the Soo Line Property. 4.) The, intensity and frequency of blasting and other noise-producing activities related to the production. Howe, Inc. occassionally does use blasting, which is a normal procedure to insure the safety of our payloader operator from overhang in our bins. All blasting is done within our buildings with no effect to our buildings cr neigh- boring area. We have a state pennit issued 5-17-77 which is required for this typec'of work. A permit copy is attached. Conforming to all regulations per- taining to use and storage of these materials is necessary before a permit is issued. The maximum. use of these materials in a years time is 300 pounds. The other nice producing activity mentioned at the first hearing is the switching brought in by the Soo Line R.R. The Soo Line R.R. gives us one switch a day when needed. There are many days when we do not need a switch. We feel that we should not be held responsible for the Soo Line activities not pertain- ing to the Howe plant. One more noise producing activity mentioned at the first hearing was the noise of traffic from our payloader tractcr and truck traffic along the north side of our building. Here again, the building as proposed would curtail any noise coming from the movement of trucks and equipment. 5.) What provisions for remergrncy procedures including posting of after- • hours telephone numbers on the building? There had been an allegation made at the first hearing that the police and fire department did not have emergency numbers for Howe, Inc. After the meeting I called the Brooklyn Center Police and Fire Department and talked to Ken Smith. He had telephone numbers listed for Bill Howe, Tom Howe and Ralph Howe. In addition to those already on file, I gave him numbers for two other office employees. To insure that no future confussion occurs, we have posted these names and numbers on the office and plant doors. 6.) Existing and proposed hours of operation. Our normal hours are between 7:00 AM and 5:00 PM. monday - friday. Our production day does not vary much fran our normal working hours. Reviewing our past year - July 1876 through June 1977 - we manufactured fertilizer 142 days. Start-up time is as follows: After 7:00 AM 80 days Between 6;00 - 7:00 AM 31 days Between 5:00 - 6:OOAM 21 days Between 4:00 - 5:00 AM 8 days Before 4:00 AM 2 days 142- days Any start up time before 6:00 AM was in our spring rush season. Shut down was normal on all days that we ran. You can see from the schedule that our hours were not erratic. At no time did we run two and three shifts and at no time did we run at night. 7.) A discription of shipping and receiving activities, including the amount accomplished by over-the road vehicles. - 4 - Fertilizer shipments from Howe, Inc. for the past year July 1976 through June 1977 were over 90o by -truck. This due in fact, that trucks can expedite • the rmvement of fertilizer to farms over short distances in a shorter period of time. Loading hours at the plant are 7:00 PM to 5 :00 PM. The delivery of fertilizer to the plant for the same time period, by to¢uzage, was 19% by truck and 81% by railcar. There were 510 truckloads and 555 carloads to Howe, Inc. Also enclosed is a letter from the Soo Line R.R. showing simuliar figures. The comments made by the Mpls Alderman regarding industrial zoned property along "the Soo Line trucks reverting back to residential areas were surmising men in Mpls. they have allowed future industrial expansion abutting residential areas, such as Walker Lumber Company. We have worked and cooperated with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Enclosed you will find copies of operating permits issued by the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Also attached is the inspection report by the Occupational Safety and Health Division or OSHA. The report lists three nonserious violations. Two of the violations were on an obsolete bench grinder not in use, which has since been scrapped. The third was no cover guard on a pulley belt, which also has been corrected. There were no fines imposed. You will also find enclosed a letter from the Tennessee Valley Authority in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. The TVA people are recognized as the leaders in fertilizer development and research in the world. Some of their, processes and patents are used in every fertilizer plant in the world. Within this letter Mr. Hubert Balay expresses his views on Howe, Inc. 's efferts to improve our pollution control methods. He states Howe, Inc. has "been willing to use new raw materials and operating techniques, sometimes at considerable extra cost to you, when they showed evidence of reef-icing discharge • from your plant.". He also states "You are constantly upgrading your equipment. Two years ago you installed on your amamniator a venturi scrubber with 24 inches of water pressure drop. This device is accepted in the fertilizer industry as the best scrubbing device for removing aerosols and fumes from a granulation plant. I understand you have recently decided, at considerable expense, to increase the pressure drop on this device to 40 inches of water to improve the scrubbing efficiency of your plant. He continues by adding, "I believe that this indicates that you are keeping your facilities equipped with the best equipment and using the best techniques available.". Mr. Balay is also aware of other decisions made by Howe, Inc. which shows a cooperative attitude towards our neighborhood and environment. Quote "I have also been impressed by your restraint in adopting practices which would improve your profit picture, but which might annoy your neighbors. An example of this is your decision not to use anhydrous ammonia as a nitrogen source. Anhydrous ammonia is the most economical form of nitrogen available to the industry and, as far as I am able to determine, is used by every granulation plant in the United States except yours. Your decision not to use this volatile substance has constantly put you in a bad competitive position over the years." Unquote. The letters and documents from manufactures of agricultural chemicals, Producers of Raw Fertilizer Materials, University of Minnesota, Crystal Medical Clinic, Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, State of Minnesota, The Fertilizer Institute, The Potash Institute, OSHA and the Tennessee Valley Authority show • that Howe, Inc. has an excellent record with the industry and State in concern forlenvironment and safety. Howe, Inc. has a progressive cooperating attitude with all the governing agencies and bodies. - 5 - I sincerely hope this is sufficient information for the Planning Camdssion to substantiate the responsive attitude toward plant safety, concern of environment and neighbors and health hazards. I also ask the Planning Ccr=dssion to recanrnnd our proposal for rezoning and building permit to the City Council. The proposal as it has been submitted would alleviate many of the concerns raised at the first meeting. First, it would act as a buffer for noise from trains, trucks and payloader equipmen-c. Second, it would act as a screen from any trash or debris. 71-drdly, and most important, we are proposing an improvement and upgrading of the premises which would be beneficial to both the neighborhood and the City of Brooklyn Center. Bill M. Howe • • . :, al September 13, 1977 T0: Mayor of Brooklyn Center Members of Brooklyn Center City Council RE: Howe Fertilizer, Inc. We the undersigned want to make known our concerns - and objections with regard to Howe Inc. ' s petition for re-zoning and any possible further expansion of Howe, Inc. 1. Re-zolle from R-1 to I-2 of two lots addressed ash X129 and 3135 49th Avenue North to provide a 100 ft. buffer zone. a. Howe, Inc. has had several years to provide a buffer zone along 49th Avenue North. Until recently all we have had is a green strip of quack grass, weeds, some dead trees and dead lilac bushes. Within the last year some evergreens have been planted, but unless they , .are cared for, we expect they too, may die. b. There is an awful lot of junk and general debris ` behind and around the plant which could be kepi: cleaned up. c. We feel that the two houses, presently on lots 3129 and 3135 49th Avenue North, are about as good a buffer along 49th Avenue as is possible. d. We would like to see Howe, Inc. clean up the'' rubbish, pave the roadways around the plant and screen in the entire area. 2. Building additions and site improvements at Howe, Ind. a. To our knowledge there are no provisions to upgrade equipment at the plant to control emissions of obnoxious odors, i.e. ammonia smell, which wasQextremely obnoxious as recent as 9-8-77. 1 'o. To us, expansion means growth. Vie don' t want any of the, problems, i.e. dust, noise, vibrations ... trong obnoxious odors, etc. , that in our homes, s we would have if Howe, Inc. were to grow. • ! 4; -2- c. We have noticed a considerable increase in large truck traffic, some driving down restricted streets in our neighborhood, since Howe, Inc, enlarged their weigh scale. d. Perhaps Howe, Inc. could move some of their operations into the country to be closer to their farming customers. We wish to be able to enjoy our homes and yards, and to be proud of our neighborhood here in Brooklyn Center. Therefore, we strongly urge that you do not amend the Comprehensive Plan that was adopted.-in 1966. Copies to: Philip Q. Cohen, Mayor Councilmen Maurice Britts Bill Fignar Tony Kuefler Gene Lhotka Name Ad- dress _ Tele. No Ad ZA /�r.I Cr�(.cf_,��: ' :ter L �t,: _ —� _� �c."Z�LiL�t;�.�' �ie��..• _jam(�.1.�`r`',,I 7 � .'.�,,,�?�`�, �,��';��� 9;;;.11��j .:?�s�������� �-��'.,�.�.•.'�j,�,�'✓ :� . � �,.�,;. 's`d�n / /'�✓ � ��'��� CJ. J°� ��.1iL.=J //' � 't � �.lill•/✓'C..1'U / �. ✓.�.. M �iG.r.' irf ���n ���ll�r .f���y /�l�f i��� • ,,.c�7�-� �r�lJ y� .ter Name Address Tele. No. - J. c- q U � �7-�v� -cam;�• '11 .,�..,• j I/7. 14e �' 't- d. / 63S'6 • ..� `li�.:%V���...�II��lt.�7��"r�e ��ic' �� s-�i.� �4='' .2..<'/✓G.,�-! /-�,1� �'G�J .s�.t r3.'.e:�'�� f•,� �. I. . DATE: OCTOBER 11, 1977 ' TO: BR'1OYLYN CT-R PLANITIM, COIXISSION ���' EN FROV: SW NEIGHBORHOOD ADVISORY GROUP SUBJECT: HOWE, INC. REZONING REQUEST After considerable input on both sides to the Howe, Inca request for rezoning two parcels of adjacent land, the Sal Neighborhood Advisory Council offers these recommendations to the Planning Commission: 1. On a possible change or amendment of the Comprehensive Plan that would be requisite to any zoning changes; concerning the Howe, Inc. request , we believe that the spirit of the Plan was meant to maintain coherency, control and compatibility of adja- cent properties and neighborhoods when personal property rights are in conflict. To amend or abridge the Plan can be done, but only for its long term benefits and with great certainty that restraints are built into the amendments as controls against • subsequent abuses of the spirit of the Comprehensive Plan. 2. In the matter of rezoning two parcels of land West of the Howe, Inc. property from Residential to I-2, we cannot determine whether the request is to "upgrade`­or "expand" present operations. To "upgrade" is desirable, if it is part of a plan that improves the visual appearance of the entire plant and property; there has been little evidence demonstrated over the past 20 years or so that the visual appearance and enhancement of the co=unity has weighed on the minds of Howe, Inc. management . However, we cannot preclude that enlightened self-interest may now be in the strategy of the owners in order to increase efficiency of operation by upgrading facilities. • Expansion, however, is contrary to the wishes of the neighborhiod • and the Comprehensive Plan. This is, in the main, because of the obnoxious and toxic effects of the emissions from the plant . Expansion could mean an increase of emissions and we cannot expect any reasonable person to be in favor of such propects. 3. The adversary history of the plant and neighborhood which still obtains in the matter of odors, esthetics and traffic suggests that the request for rezoning (and change or amendment to the Comprehensive Plan ) is premature and ill-advised at this time . And that any serious discussion of the matter in the future should include: controls such as licensing, automatic shut-off devices etc for adverse atmospheric conditions, maximum confor- mance to Minnesota EPA requlations and site improvements (black- top, decorator gravel, shrubs, walkways, grass, etc. ) that mod- ernize the operations to the highest degree possible. Charlie Gellerman, Jbhn Larson, Dean Hill, Leo Hanson, Virgil Linn, Yvonne Quady ROY M. HOWE, President Telephone: Bus.: (612)535-1030 Res.: (612)537-2296 HOWE --- INCORPORATED • Manufacturer and Jobber FERTILIZERS — INSECTICIDES — FUNGICIDES AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS 4821 Xerxes Avenue North MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA 55430 October, 13, 1977 Blair Tremere City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Blair, This letter is intended to inform you of the steps that are being taken to improve our pollution program at Howe Inc. To increase the efficiency of our pollution control equipment, we are working with an engineering firm Pearson and Associates, Inc. and the chemical engineers from T. V. A. , who are the experts in fertilizer technology in the • pollution area. The recommendation from both Pearson and Associates, Inc. and Tennesee Valley Authority is the installation of a higher efficiency Venturi scrubber. Their comments state that "this scrubber is accepted in the fertilizer industry as the best scrubbing device for removing aerosols and fumes from a granulation plant." This equipment is on order and will be designed and engineered for our specific air flow and operation. It will be installed and in operation before July 1, 1978. Sincerely yours, Bill Howe BH:th Vice President • November 1, 1977 Mr. Bob Meyers Minnesota Pollution Control Agency Air Quality Division 1935 Nest County Toad B•2 Rosevi11e, NN 55113 Re: Howe Fertilizer, Inc. in �ftoklyn Center Dear Mr. Myers: Several weeks ago we discussed the current operation at Howe, Inc.;the compliance and noncompliance with MPCA Regulations; apparent efforts by Howe, Inc. to upgrade their pollution control equipr,.nt; and, Howe, Inc. request to the City for necessary zoning approvals to construct additional buildings and to install certain other improvements. The Planning Con�nission has considered the requests at public hearing, and has • tabled the matters for further review and research. Part of the research which we are undergoing is the status of this operation with respect to applicable pol- 1 lution control laws and regulations. Howe, Inc. has told the City of their steps `to improve our pollution program' in a letter dated October 13, 1977 and in a memorandum to the Planning Cormission dated Septerber 12, 1977. I have enclosed copies of both for your review and cor,nents. There are several questions relative to this pollution regulation issue to which the City would appreciate answers or professional evaluation, since it is con- ceivable that appropriate compliance assurances could be developed with Howe, Inc. as conditions to their zoning and use permit approvals. Could you or others in your division respond to the following; preferably in writing: 1 . What is the status of Howe, Inc. with respect to compliance under MPCA regulations and specifically under NPCA Operating Permits, No. 155-75-0-3 and No. 155-75-0-4? 2. What constitutes "compliance" for the current level of production? What abatement equipment does this involve with respect to particulates and to odors? 3. Are the steps and equipment proposed by Lowe, Inc. satisfactory • (sue the enclosed data from Howe, Inc.)? Is the time for compliance adequate within any deadlines set by MPCA? Mr. Bob Meyers Page 2 November 1, 1977 4. Can monitoring equipment be installed which would signal an alarm that compliance levels are exceeded? Further, could such monitoring equipment automatically shut down the activity until corrected? The City would also appreciate recommendations from VPCA as to available regulatory measures the City alone, or jointly with MPCA, could consider to gain effective compliance with established regulations. The Planning Commission next meets on Thursday, November 10; the Hoare, Inc. matter is tentatively scheduled for that meeting. Comments from your division would be appreciated by that time. Thank you for your assistance. Please contact me for further information or comments. Sincerely, Blair Tremere Director of Planning and Inspection BT:mig • cc: Files No. 77037, 77035 Cecilia Scott, Planning Commission Chairman Enclosures