Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC79069 - 12/6/79 - 4821 Xerxes AveCITY OF 11"k,0011,11i Clad 11k PLANNING W-11.1'IIJJIOil !O(Ili G APPLICA11011 Application No. 79069 Please Print Cle;,,r1;; or T r, Street Location of Property 4821 Xerxes' Ave. N. Legal Decription of Property Section 10 _ 0...ner Bill Howe Address 5919 St. Croix Ave. Phone No 535-1030 (Howe, Inc.) Applicant ,James Russell, Attorney Addre�s 8085 Wayzata Boulevard Mpls. 5542 Phone N10. 545-5653 r Type of Request: Rezoning _ Subdivision A.oproval .X Variance • Sitc & G1dg. Plan Appi-oval Special Use Permit. _ Other: _ Description of R.equesf: Variance from the Zoning Ordinance. Lee $$15.00' Recei i- No. 52058 Date! of P.C. Consideration: Approved V D-n i sad ing cor.c App1 e PLANNING CON MISS10,N' RECOMr,;ridDATiQj1 this day of 19 '7 suhj c:t :- Vie fullov'- CITY COUNCIL ACC IOiq Dates of CourIczl Con: idl-raticn: Approk-u-3 Denied x. this _ %7_ day of ��.w 19 '1 � with the following exo nd:"r0r: t Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 79068 and No. 79069 Applicant: James Russell for Howe, Inc. Location: 4821 Xerxes Ave. North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval (79068) and a Variance from the Replatting, Curbing, Landscape Plan, Parking and Lighting Provisions, Buffer Requirements from the Residential Zoning District and Setback Requirements Contained in the Zoning Ordinance (79069) The applicant is seeking site and building plan approval to construct an approximate 74' x 218' insulated metal building to replace the building that was destroyed by fire on that site on January 6, 1979. He proposes to place the building in the exact same location as it existed prior to the fire. The building would be used for warehousing, storage of vehicles and equipment and for maintenance operations (uses that were being conducted in the destroyed building at the time of the fire) and the applicant proposes to equip the building with an automatic fire extinguish- ing system in accordance with ordinance requirements. A site plan has been submitted showing the location and configuration of the proposed building which indicates that a potential of 109 parking spaces can be provided on the site. The landscape plan submitted shows only existing land- scaping and no additional landscaping is proposed. The drainage plan shows the existing drainage system with only minor elevation alterations to be done in about four locations. They are not proposing any new curb and gutter to assist drainage on the site. The floor plans show three principal activity areas for garage storage, warehousing and a maintenance shop, all divided with fire separations. The building would have two loading docks, one on the north end and the other on the east end. Various overhead doors would be located around the building to provide vehicle access to the building. No site alterations, including delineating parking, is proposed by the applicant for this site in conjunction with this site plan approval. Instead, the applicant under Application No. 79069 is seeking variances from all of the existing Zoning Ordinance requirements as they relate to replatting; curbing and drainage require- ments; landscaping; parking and lighting provisions; buffer requirements from the residential district and setback requirements. Section 35-240 of the Zoning Ordinance allows variances in instances where the strict enforcement of the literal provisions of the ordinance would create undue hardship because of circumstances unique and distinctive to an individual property under consideration and are in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance. The provisions of the ordinance considered in conjunction with the unique and distinctive circumstances affecting the property must be the proximate cause of the hardship; circumstances caused by the property owner or his predecessor in title shall not constitute sufficient justification to grant a variance. Variances 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. 12-6-79 -1- Application Nos.79068 and 79069 b. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the parcel of land for which the variance is sought, and are not common, generally, to other property `- within the same zoning classification. c. The alleged hardship is related to the requirements of this ordinance and has not been created by any persons presently or formerly having an interest in the parcel of land. d. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood in which the parcel of land is located. In granting variances the Council can impose conditions and restrictions so as to ensure compliance with the provisions of the ordinance and with the spirit and intent of the Comprehensive Plan and to protect adjacent properties. The applicant has submitted a written request for a variance (attached) outlining how they feel the Standards for a'Variance are met. In summary, they argued that: 1. The ordinance contemplates only the development of an undeveloped site and that an economic hardship results when these require- ments are applied to this case. Also, they contend the ordinance requirements create critical impediments to the conduct of the applicant's business. 2. The situation and conditions are unique because it involves the sl- replacement of a destroyed structure. 3. The hardship is related to the requirements of the ordinance in that the complex was built under earlier City requirements and fail to comply only because of changes in the ordinance made by the City. 4. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or improvements in the neighborhood. They noted that the two nearest residences to the west are owned by the applicant. 5. And finally, that Section 35-111 permits the continuance of non- conforming uses and the applicant fits this condition and,there- fore, variances should be allowed. In response to these arguments, it should be noted that the Zoning Ordinance does not only contemplate the development of undeveloped sites. Section 35-230 requires plan approval by the City Council before commencing with the construction or major alteration of a structure, except one and two family dwellings and buildings accessory thereto. In conjunction with this plan approval, the Council may impose such conditions and restrictions deemed necessary to protect the public interest and to secure compliance with the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Economic hardships, in and of themselves, have not been considered a "hardship" within the meaning of the Standards for Variances. The destruction of the applicant's property by fire might be considered uncommon, but not neces- sarily unique. The City would have to deal with other similar situations in the same manner when considering reconstruction of destroyed buildings and the appli- cation of ordinance requirements. 12-6-79 -2- Application (bs . 79068 and 79069 Even though the building was built under other ordinance requirements and does not conform with current provisions, an ordinance related hardship does not necessarily exist providing justification to ignore all regulations which have come into being after that time. If the provisions and requirements can be provided without depriving the property owner of a substantial investment, the provisions need not be varied from. Regarding the argument that variances would not be detrimental to the public or injurious to neighboring properties, it should be noted that the Howe site has been deficient with respect to requirements designed to provide additional protection when industrial uses abut residential uses. A number of nuisance complaints have been registered regarding this operation. The fact that Howe owns two of the neighboring properties is irrelevant. The Zoning Ordinance makes no distinction on the basis of ownership, it requires certain protections in instances where residential property abuts industrial regardless of who the owner happens to be. The specific sections of the ordinance that the applicant is seeking variances from are as follows: 1. The requirement in Section 35-540 for the combination into a single parcel through platting or registered land survey of multiple parcels of land which are contiguous and adjacent and which are proposed to serve a single development use and which are under common ownership. This requirement has been typically required when City Council approval is sought regarding unplatted parcels. It is not felt that the Standards for Variances are met with respect to this request and the applicant has not demonstrated that a hardship exists `-- if the requirement is met. 2. Curbing and drainage requirements contained in Section 35-710. Currently the City is waiting the results of a study from Hickok and Associates regarding the need for modifiying drainage and runoff requirements for land uses that store hazardous or toxic chemicals. It is not advisable to grant variances with respect to drainage, curbing and runoff re- quirements, but rather defer these requirements contingent upon the outcome of that study. 3. The landscape plan requirements contained in Section 35-230 require that the site plan contain landscaping. Also, land- scaping is required in certain buffer areas. 4. Parking and lighting provisions contained in Section 35-704 Subsection 3 and 35-712 respectively. Parking requirements are based on one stall for every 300 square feet of gross floor area or one stall for two employees at the time the maximum number of employees are on the site, whichever is greater. The exterior lighting provisions of the ordinance apply when lighting is being provided. The requirements deal with directing the light on the property so that it does not spill over property lines and create glare to the neighboring properties. The staff is not aware of any `- lighting problem on the site and the applicant is proposing no new lighting. If a problem exists with the current site lighting, compliance should be sought and variances need not be granted. 12-6-79 -3- Application Nos.79068 and 79069 5. Buffer and setback requirements contained in Section 35-413 Subsection 1 where I-2 abuts R-1 at a property line. The ordinance provides that there shall be a protective strip not less than 100 feet in width where I-2 abuts R-1, R-2 or R-3 at a property line. The protective strip shall not be used for parking, driveways, off-street loading or storage and shall be landscaped. The landscape treatment shall contain an opaque fence or wall which shall not extend within 10 feet of any street.right-of-way. The fence or wall design must be approved by the City Council as being in harmony with the residential neighborhood and providing sufficient screening of the industrial area. The fence or wall shall be 8 feet in height. The protective strip shall contain no structures other than the approved fence or wall. With respect to the site in question, this would require a buffer strip along almost the entire west side of the Howe Fertilizer site. 6. Setback requirements from streets. Section 35-400 contains the requirements for building setbacks. Regarding the proposed building, there is a 100 foot setback required on the west side (in conjunction with the buffer requirements) and a 50 foot setback from 49th Avenue North. With respect to the setback from the east property line adjacent to the highway right-of-way, we have received a letter from Mr. Donald Notvik of the Attorney General's office indicating that the State had not acquired the property for construction of a roadway, but rather to provide access to the scale area on the Howe property. Therefore, the east property line is considered an internal property line and a 10 foot building setback should be allowed. There are two matters that have yet to be totally addressed by the Planning Commission and the City Council relating to various findings regarding the Howe site. These matters should be addressed prior to reviewing further the site plan and variances. The City Council, based on the Planning Commission's recommendation, made two findings on May 14, 1979: 1. That Howe, Inc. was a valid use in 1946 and became a nonconforming use under the City's Zoning Ordinance in 1957. 2. That the building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979 was part of the entire complex, that less than 60% of said complex was destroyed by fire and that, therefore, the applicant is entitled to rebuild a similar warehouse on the site. Two other issues were left pending, one being the size of the building that could be rebuilt and the second, the type of uses permitted in the building. Howe, Inc. became a nonconforming use under the Zoning Ordinance in 1957. At that time, the size of the building was approximately 62 feet by 218 feet (13,500 sq. ft. and Tgq,�00 cubic feet). An addition, for which a building permit was issued with no supporting City Council approval, was made in 1961 which brought the building size to approximately 74 feet by 218 feet (16,200 sq. ft. and 225,800 cubic feet). A recommended finding should be made regarding which size building should be permitted for any reconstruction. Also, all permits for the subject building were approved for "warehouse and storage" and did not include vehicle or equipment maintenance which was also being conducted in the building prior to the fire. 12-6-79 -4- .Application Nos. 79068 and 79069 A recommended finding should be made regarding whether only warehousing and storage should be permitted or whether warehousing, storage, and vehicle and equipment maintenance will be permitted in the proposed building. In reviewing these two applications it is felt that all the variances in their entirety should not be recommended. Only those requirements in the ordinance that tend to conflict with one another as they relate to this site should be varied from. In these cases an ordinance related hardship does exist. It is also felt that the building setbacks and buffer requirements which provide protection for neighboring properties should take priority. A rectangular building of approximately 13,500 square feet (189,200 cubic feet) can be constructed and meet the 50 foot setback requirements from the 49th Avenue property line, the 10 foot building setback requirement from the east property line and the 100 foot building setback requirement from the west property line. An approximate 16,200 square foot building (225,800 cubic feet), although not rectangular, could also be located in the same area meeting all building setback requirements. With this shift of the building to meet ordinance setback requirements, a 24 foot driving lane could be established between the new north building.and the middle building to provide access from east to west on the site. A 100 foot landscaped buffer strip could be provided immediately to the west of the proposed building. The 24 foot driving area should be bounded by B-612 curb and gutter to prohibit encroachment into this buffer area. Additional buffer, of less than 100 feet, could also be provided along the west property line with encroachment into this area being allowed for driving purposes and employee parking only. �-- In can be argued that variances for some of the buffer requirements and some of the parking requirements can be recommended, because to meet these requirements in total, creates an ordinance related hardship. These requirements in effect, conflict with each other. It is felt that delineated parking for approximately 65 cars would be adequate parking for the operation. Employee parking should be the only type parking allowed on the west side, no truck or other vehicular parking should be allowed in this area. All parking on the site should be definitely delineated. The effect of variances, if granted, would be consistent with the finding that Howe, Inc. is entitled to rebuild. Variances should be authorized only where the effect is minimal and where certain provisions and conditions are taken to minimize their impact. A public hearing has been scheduled for Planning Commission Application No. 79069 and notices have been sent. The following is recommended with respect to the two applications under consider- ation by the Planning Commission. Recommend denial of the following requests for variances under Application No. 79069 as not meeting the Zoning Ordinance Standards for Variances: 12-6-79 -5- Application Nos.79068 and 79069 1. A variance from Section 35-540 regarding the combination of land parcels. �-- 2. A variance from Section 35-710 regarding drainage and curbing requirements noting that this matter is under further study by the City and certain requirements may be forthcoming. 3. Variances from Section 35-400 regarding building setback requirements. 4. A variance from Section 35-413 Subsection 1 regarding land- scaping requirements in the protected buffer strip. Recommend approval of the following variance requests under Application No. 79069 noting that they meet the Standards for Variances and are subject to various conditions to minimize their impact: 1. A variance from Section 35-413 Subdivision-1 to allow an encroachment into the 100 foot buffer area for a maximum 24 foot wide driving lane for on -site vehicle access provided that the driving lane is bounded by B-612 curb - and gutter to prohibit encroachments into the buffer area. No storage of equipment or vehicles shall be allowed in this area. 2. A variance from Section 35-413 Subdivision l.to permit 21 parking stalls to encroach into the 100 foot buffer area along the west property line, westerly of the middle and south buildings provided this parking area is delineated and is designated for employee parking only as designated on an approved site plan. No storage of vehicles or equipment shall be allowed in this area. 3. A variance from Section 35-704 Subdivision 3 to permit a total of 65 parking stalls rather than the required 107 parking stalls provided that the approved parking is clearly delineated throughout the site as designated on an approved site plan. A general condition of approval of all the variances is that the applicant shall be subject to the necessary drainage and water runoff provisions to be determined at a future time. Approval of Application No. 79068 is recommended subject to at least the following conditions: 1. The site plan shall be modified prior to the City Counci1's review to coincide with the variances acknowledged under Application No. 79069. 2. Building plans are subject to the review and approval of the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of building permits. 12-6-79 -6- Application Nos. 79068 and 79069 3. Drainage, grading and utility plans are subject to the review and approval of the City Engineer prior to the issuance of `-- permits. The site is subject to subsequent drainage and water runoff provisions as required by the City. 4. A Performance Agreement and supporting financial guarantee (in an amount to be determined by the City Manager) shall be submitted to assure completion of approved site improvements. 5. The building shall be equipped with an automatic fire exting- uishing system to meet NFPA Standard No. 13 and shall be connected to a central monitoring device in accordance with Chapter 5 of the City Ordinances. 6. An underground irrigation system shall be provided in all landscaped areas to assure site maintenance. 7. The size of the approved building shall not exceed square feet and cubic feet (either 13,500 square feet and 189,200 cubic feet or 16,200 square feet and 225,800 cubic feet. 8. Plan approval acknowledges .the following uses as permitted in the approved building: (either warehousing and storage or warehousing, storage and vehicle and equipment maintenance). 12-6-79 -7- `„ To: BROOKLYN CENTER CITY COUNCIL From: HOWE, INC. Date: November 26, 1979 REQUEST FOR VARIANCE An application for variance from certain requirements of the zoning ordinance has been made to include a. replatting, b. curbing, c. landscape plan, d. parking and lighting provisions, e. buffer from residential, f, setback from street. A complete set of preliminary architectural drawings is being submitted showing the building proposed to replace the warehouse - maintenance building destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979. The applicant requests variance from the above requirements on �- the following grounds: 1. That the zoning ordinance contemplates development of an undeveloped site and that a particular hardship re- sults when zoning requirements are applied to this appli- cant's replacement of a destroyed building within a pre- existing complex built under different zoning requirements. The hardship is in the form of high and unwarranted expense to redesign and rebuild an existing facility and inability to comply because the requirements cannot be met without the creation of critical impediments to the conduct of ap- plicant's business. 2. The conditions upon which the application for a variance is based are unique to the applicant's parcel or other situations involving replacements of destroyed or partially destroyed structures and are not common gener- ally to other property within the same zoning classification. 3. The alleged hardship is related wholly to the requirements of this ordinance. The complex was built within earlier city requirements and fails to comply only through changes in the ordinance. 4. The granting of the variances will not be detri- mental to the public welfare or injurious to other land or Request for Variance �. Page Two November 26, 1979 improvements in the neighborhood in which the applicant's land is located. The variances merely return the parcel to its condition before the fire. The nearest two resi- dences on the west of the parcel where a buffer would be indicated by the zoning ordinance are owned by applicant. 5. Section 35-111 of the zoning ordinance permits the continuance of nonconforming uses of land and buildings which were legal at the time of the adoption of the zoning ordinance. The applicant's use fits the conditions de- scribed in this provision, and variance from the require- ments of the zoning ordinance should be allowed on the authority of this ordinance provision. HO E, INC.. MR V VC 00 _ q v Ol W x ; sUj N �N of i w I 'Cp W N 1 ! 4goJ 4qj7 qq%-7 ygo8�4�g12 �4' y 429' �#93J_... ---- o q 9 01 q1 n {•,� . _ J y93g 'f9y'� 49y9 ,.a agoo gg06 4gl2 y92o �9z� w , r' t Xerx jklk a — ARO a' G��y