HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC79068 - 12/6/79 -4821 Xerxes AveCITY Or W-10U1;I. Y i, CI I ff..ic
PLANNING CGiT11Jj
"10(i ZONING A;'i'f.ICA'f 10H
Application f.,o . 79068
Please Tint Cleary; or Tom'_['_''
Street Location of Property 4821 Xerxes Avenue North
Legal Description of Property Section 10
er
Bi 11
Howe
Address
5919
St. Croix Avenue -
Mpls. 55422 T^ Phone 1"IC). 535-1030 (Howea Inca
Applicant
James
Russell, Attorney
'Address
8085
Wayzata Boulevard
Mpls. 55426 Phone No. 545-5653 _ y _
Type of Request:
Rezoning
Subdivision Approval
Varianrce
X • Situ & Bldg. Plan t?ppi,oval
Special Use Perimi t Other:
Description of Request: To build a replacement for the warehouse -maintenance building
destroyed by fire on January 6, 1979
Fee a 25.00
T.
Receipt - t,"l
).
52058
PLANNING C011MMISS-1101i pEC01M:';rEiaiATiC.1V
Date: of P.C. Consideration:
J
Approved ovrd Den i ed thi s day of���� 19 7`., s l!�? j ct ' r� tt,.'. ? l otr-
i n tJ c n d ` .ions :
✓ t
- Chai ri*i;al�-__
CITY COUNCIL ACTION
Dates of Council Cor,sid,..raticn:
Approved Denied ", this 17 day of _ �_ 19 with the folIowi;ig
?.pt'ndmoit t :
� Clc:rl
P I f'or•l�, ��) 1il,, ,c.r
}
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
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
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 Bars . 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 800 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
1,89,�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 6-612 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 1 to permit 21
parking stalls to encroach into the 100 foot buffer area
along the west property line, westerly of the middle and
south buildings provided this parking 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 Council'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-
v� •^vac ;; Z � ^ •
�� i�;.o "a Apo � � • : �1t• ..
14
Ic
•::o • Xf-
� � •``<<• '# - � � �"• '
• �j ff 111 '' '^� 9 '�
�Ir � slk `e � ,t ii ,�•s _ _
ri
Ir
• \ � ti I �..•._ c.. .1,-
i ` '► tA ,
�
-tea., �\�\� ! � l7 .'"'•,�-k� � �� O
�' 1 = ► fl� �� 'PFFr�E` �'' ?
I& *
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
WILLIAM KRANZ, INC. RESIDENTIAL
EXCAVATING
8424 Noble Avenue North GRADING
CRANE SERVICE
Brooklyn Park, Minnesota 55443 REMODELING
Office: 425-5262 • Residence: 588-4868 General Contractor and Builder Since 1919
October 27, 1981,
Will Dahn
City of Brooklyn Center
6301 Shingle Creek Parkway
Brooklyn Center, MN.55430
RE : Howe Project - Brooklyn Center
Enclosed are copies of the compaction tests for the center wall of north
building (truck garage). Please note recompaction and retested.
Bill Kranz
i
I � o
l �ti
'ROJECT:
UPORTED TO
Q twin city testinq
artcf arx7r ��r�q w0QW3WC &.& WW_
662 CROMWELL AVENUE
5T. PAUL, MN 55114
PHONE 612/645.3601
REPORT OF: DENSITY TESTS OF COMPACTED FILL
HOWE FERTILIZER
49TH & XERXES AVE NORTH DATE: October 2, 1981
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA COPIES TO:
North Suburban Excavating
. 8424 Noble Ave North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
LABORATORY No.
TEST NUMBER:
DATE TAKEN:
11-6471
1
Sept 29, 1981
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Silty sand,
(Moisture -Density Sample Number) fine to medium
grained, Some
gravel, dark
brown (SM)-1
LOCATION:
15' NofS
end of central
footing of
garage
building
2
Sept 29, 1981
Silty sand,
fine to medium
grained, some
gravel, dark
brow (SM)-1
30'NofS
end of central
footing of
garage
building
3
Sept 29, 1981
Silty sand,
fine to medium
grained, a
little gravel,
dark brown
(SM)-1
45'NofS
end of central
footing of
garage
building
DEPTH BELOW FOOTING
GRADE:
3�I
12,
3"
DEPTH BELOW EXISTING GRADE:
3"
12 '
3"
FIELD DENSITY DETERMINATION:
Method
Density in Place by Sand -Cone
Method, ASTM: D1556-64 (- #4 Basis)
Dry Density
(pcf)
113.5
112
112
Moisture Content
N
6.7
5.3
3.6
Plus #4 Material
K
25
27
10 10
LABORATORY MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATION OF SOIL:
Method
ASTM:D698-78,
Method "A",
(44 Basis)
Maximum Dry Density
(pcf)
118.4
118.4
118.4
Optimum Moisture
(%)
12.9
12.9
12.9
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS:
Compaction
(T
96
94.5
94.5
Specified Compaction
K
98
-98
98
ATTENTION: Density tests are valid at the location and elevation of the test only. No representation is made as to
the adequacy of fill and compaction at locations and elevations other than those tested.
AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS. THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES. ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS, AND AUTMOR-
IZATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS. CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL
TwinXC*tTesfing and Engineering L=07j//_
cry, Inc.
SG•225 (E1-A) By
Az"t
PROJECT:
Q twin city testing
Eric Er,lqiii-mm"riq (i3Cratcw1j, K W_
662 CROMWELL AVENUE
ST. PAUL. MN 55114
PHONE 612/645-3601
REPORT OF: DENSITY TESTS OF COMPACTED FILL
HOWE FERTILIZER
49TH & XERXES AVE NORTH
BROOKLYN CENTER, MINNESOTA
DATE: October 2, 1981
COPIES TO:
REPORTED TO: North Suburban Excavating
8424 Noble Ave North
Brooklyn Park, MN 55443
LABORATORY No. 11-6471
TEST NUMBER:
DATE TAKEN:
4
Sept 29, 1981
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION: Silty sand,
(Moisture -Density Sample Number) fine to medium
grained, a
little gravel,
dark brown
(SM)-1
LOCATION:
DEPTH BELOW FOOTING GRADE:
15 ' N of S
end of central
footing of
garage
building
(Retest of #1)
311
5
Sept 29, 1981
Silty sand,
fine to medium
grained, a
little gravel,
dark brown
(SM)-1
30'NofS
end of central
footing of
garage
building
(Retest of #2)
1.5'
0
Sept 29,-1981
Silty sand,
fine to medium
grained, a
little gravel,
dark brown
(SM)-1
45'NofS
end of central
footing of
garage
building
(Retest of #3)
311
DEPTH BELOW EXISTING GRADE: 311 1. 5' 3"
FIELD DENSITY DETERMINATION:
Method Density in Place by Nuclear Density Method "B" ASTM: D 2922-78 (- #4 Basis)
Dry Density (pcf) 118 116 118.5
Moisture Content W 7.1 8.8 9.1
Plus #4 Material N 15 13 14
LABORATORY MOISTURE -DENSITY RELATION OF SOIL:
Method ASTM:D698-78, Method "A", (—#4 Basis)
Maximum Dry Density (pcf) 118.4 118.4 118.4
Optimum Moisture K 12.9 12.9 12.9
COMPACTION TEST RESULTS:
Compaction N 99.5 98 100
Specified Compaction N 98 98 98
ATTENTION: Density tests are valid at the location and elevation of the test only. No representation is made as to
the adequacy of fill and compaction at locations and elevations other than those tested.
AS A MUTUAL PROTECTION TO CLIENTS. THE PUBLIC AND OURSELVES. ALL REPORTS ARE SUBMITTED AS THE CONFIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF CLIENTS. AND AUTHOR•
12ATION FOR PUBLICATION OF STATEMENTS, CONCLUSIONS OR EXTRACTS FROM OR REGARDING OUR REPORTS IS RESERVED PENDING OUR WRITTEN APPROVAL
Twin City Testing and Engineering Laboratory, Inc.
�P
SG-222 (81-A) BY -