Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC81029 - 7/7/81 - 4821 Xerxes AveCITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER Street Location of Property Legal Description of Property PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION Application No. 81029 Please Print Clearly or Type f r 4821 Xerxes Avenue North f, Lots 1 to 5, Block 4, Section 10 Owner Howe, Inc. Address 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Phone No. 535-1030 Applicant same Address Type of Request: Rezoning x Variance Phone No. Subdivision Approval Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Variance from 35-413:1(6) to allow 40 ft. encroachment into required 100 ft. buffer strip. Fee $ 15.00 Receipt No. 5522 c_,p App cant s Signature a3 Date PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: �{/��.� .� ��� 6 - //--j�/ Approved Denied this day of 19subject to the follow- ing conditions: i Dates of Council Consideration: Approved Denied this amendment: 1rman CITY COUNCIL ACTION day or 19 , with the following Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) 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 1957 when the industrial zone was expanded to 49th Avenue North, for 100 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 deleterious affect on the public welfare or the neighborhood that 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 a 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 -i - Application No. 81029 continued 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- 71' f . HOWE J,�,,�� FERTILIZERS • AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS Mr. Ronald Warren Planning Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Warren, 4821 Xerxes Ave. No. • Minneapolis, MN 55430 (612) 535-1030 April 30, 1981 This letter is a request for a variance from the City's current zoning ordinance regarding land use and is an addendum to the letter submitted on April 23, 1981. If it becomes necessary, this variance request is from the 50 foot set -back on the second story office addition. The plan shows an addition to the existing office that would simply raise the roof of the existing building and add a second floor. This space is cut out from the industrial square footage Howe, Inc. was allowed to rebuild after the fire. This office space is a conforming use and is compatible with the residential neighborhood. The proposal follows the City's request that the industrial space be further reduced by 4,500 sq. ft. to insure compliance with the City's density ratios. The ordinance prevents its application because of the special circumstances in this proposal and the hardship the ordinance places on the site. a. Land Conditions Create Hardship The office building was built in 1952, added on in 1967 and remodeled in 1976. The office building is already here and the addition is merely to go up with a second floor. It would be absurd to move an existing building to comply with set back requirements simply to add a second floor. In 1972 when the Highway Department condemned land to make an overpass on the Soo Line Yard, it took property belonging to Howe, Inc. even though there is vacant land to the east of the overpass and could easily have been used for this purpose. The land taken in 1972 from Howe, Inc. was land that could be applied to a buffer setback. The other areas on the Howe site over the years have been built up. There is no other logical place on the site to put an office. The setback from a Highway Right of Way is a precaution in the event the highway is expanded. The setback anticipates this and is a buffer. The right of way on Highway 152 in front of Howe, Inc. was acquired to accomodate the embankment of the overpass, not for expansion of the roadbed. The office addition setback issue may have been determined in 1967 when a permit was issued without a variance for an addition to the office. Today if the ordinance is applied there would be even more hardship. b. Uniqueness of Application for Parcel This parcel is unique in every way. The historical development and hardship described in the above land conditions make the parcel unique. 1, Office has been here a long time. 2. Highway Dept. took away setback land. 3. Office is already on the site and proposal is just to go up on the existing building. Chemically Combined Plant Foods — Full Line Fertilizers & Services x 4. Other areas on site, a built up., 5 . Office addition ranted: `fin 1967 in try the aetbatck�?ea Y r without a variance. c. Hardship Created by Ordinance NO- A"'36Z ,. Howe, Inc.'s office has been located where it is for, Howe didn't create the ordinance but when applied there is a•h° There is no hardship without an ordinance. Property d. Effect on Other Neighborhood Y in Nei hbg There is no deleterious change in the neighborhood by this There is no change on the public welfare or neighborhood other than v what has always been there. The office space is a compatib-le Vf. �Uhd with the neighborhood and is a conforming use in +he no houses abuttingthe office. The onlyland affected.` y t • p 7 } fbbt high hill of the overpass in front of the office. Because of the unique circumstances to this particular propert ; we Relieve a variance from a 5 foot setback may not be nee O a Y However if a variance is required, the hardship the ordinance on . theparcel as outlined above and other oral arguments 'which 4� presented at the hearing, warrants a variance be approved as propose ^ it Sincerely yours,'' 4.h1f Y'+W Y�y, r - Tay ti::• �`,'�:r i HOWE Jnc.� FERTILIZERS • AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS Mr. Ronald Warren Planning Director City of Brooklyn Center 6301 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, Minnesota 55430 Dear Mr. Warren, 4821 Xerxes Ave. No. • Minneapolis, MN 55430 (612) 535-1030 April 23, 1981 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 11.9% 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 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, o Minnesota Department of Transportation District Five 5801 Duluth Street Golden Valley, Minnesota 55422 April 27, 1981 Mr. James H. Russell Russell, Russell and McLeod Attorneys at Law 202 Thorpe Building 8085 Wayzata Boulevard Golden Valley, Minnesota 55426 Re: S.P. 2742 (T.H. 152=129) 902 Parcel lA - Howe Inc. At 49th Avenue North in Brooklyn Center Dear Mr. Russell: As you requested, this letter will document the the status of T.H. 152 adjacent to the Howe Inc. as changes likely to occur in the near future. RECEIVED Ar! 2 (1) 1981 (612) 545.3761 recent change in property as well On July 1, 1980, the portion of T.H. 152 between 49th Avenue North and Lyndale Avenue was released to the jurisdiction of the City of Minneapolis. As a result of this action, the City was charged with the maintenance responsibility for the roadway, including the north approach fill to the Soo Line Railroad overpass which abuts the Howe property. It is highly unlikely that the City will alter the alignment of this roadway in the foreseeable future due to the bridge structure involved therewith. The State has retained the right of way acquired from Howe Inc. until the final details of the taking are resolved. This property will eventually be released to the City of Minneapolis as well. The portion of Brooklyn Boulevard north of 49th Avenue North has been proposed for release to Hennepin County, this expected to occur in the fall of 1983. Should any additional information be required to satisfy your needs, please feel free to contact the District Right of Way Office at your convenience. Sincerel , 1 ra ord, District Enginee An Equal Opportunity Employer �.t .'r rL•.,j,,� ,'..:Y,'r t...-r,W i .rYm -wn4, cs 3,r. •. :'x � ,ex�,m,F• v •iy at szl'.:y v:. 4 "rr.�+7.,., h +:mma. k ,-,n ws; ydd .y'. h + ;"L,f? '�"`"