Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPC77037 - 8/25/77 - 4821 Xerxes AveCITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER PLANNING COMMISSION ZONING APPLICATION Application No. 77037 Please Print Clearly or Type Street Location of Property 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Legal Description of Property Lot 6, Block 4, Brooklyn Manor Addition and that part of Lot 5, corner of Lot 11, Block 4, Brooklyn manor Aaai'tlon,and a point on the west ine of Lot, said block 4, distant 180 feet from the centerline of 49 .h Av nue North - Owner HnwP, Tnc _ Address 4821 Xerxes Avanua North Phone No. u5-1Q+3Q Applicant gill Hnwe Address 5919 St_ Croix AvP_ Nnrth S5479 Phone No. Type of Request: X Rezoning Subdivision Approval Variance Site & Bldg. Plan Approval Special Use Permit Other: Description of Request: Rezone ro erty from -1 (Single FamilyRPsidential) to T-2 (,PnPral Industry) to permit development of buffer zones and site upgrading per ordinance standards. Fee $ 75.00 Receipt No. 46415 App 1ca`nt s Signature August 4, 1977 Date 0 PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Dates of P.C. Consideration: �� -a S - 72 Approved Denied ,/this p� day of 19-KZ, subject to the follow- ing conditions: rman CITY COUNCIL ACTION Dates of Council Consideration: /z- Approved Denied_ this 2yLkday of 1 ,(':�;., ` 19 with the following amendment: 1 - Clerk P/I Form No. 18 (over please) + 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 of 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 is 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 Planning Commission Information Sheet Application No. 77038 Applicant: Howe, Inc. Location: 4821 Xerxes Avenue North Request: Site and Building Plan Approval The applicant proposes the erection of a new building on the north side of the site; the addition to the west end of the southerly building near the railroad right-of- way; and the demolition and replacement of the building at the southeast portion of the site informally known as the "potato shed." Also proposed are paving, curbing, and screening improvements including the installation of the ordinance required buffer zone greenstrips. Approval of this application is totally contingent on the approval of the companion rezoning petition (Application No. 77037) and revision or deletion of the Compre- hensive Plan guideline which prohibits further expansion of the industrial operation. The applicant has prepared architectural site and building plans, and we will be prepared to review as a matter of information during the public hearing on the rezoning. It is recommended that the request be tabled pending disposition of the previous application and the matter relating to the Comprehensive Plan guideline. 8-25-77 MEMORANDUM TO: File FROM: Ronald A. Warren Director of Planning and InspectiopGt DATE: July 26, 1978 SUBJECT: Meeting Regarding Screening of Howe Fertilizer Site Will Dahn and myself met today with Bill and Tom Howe at the Howe Fertilizer site after Mr. Howe had requested that we meet with him to discuss a desirable location for screening his site. We explained to him that we were only making suggestions as to desirable areas for the screening, and that the City is not, because of the nonconforming status of the site, requiring that screening be undertaken. We offered Mr. Howe a map with the location of what we felt would be the best areas for screening (attached). We ex- plained that an opaque 8 ft. fence set back 50 ft. from the property line on 49th Avenue North and continuing on the z Wing Iine(which runs between the Howe site and the residential property to the west and along the zoning line and westerly along the railroad right-of-way would be t e best alternative. Mr. Howe indicated that he felt fencing across the back yard of two residential properties owned by Howe to a point near 49th Avenue North would provide adequate screening at less cost. We pointed out that such screening might well give rise to suspicions that portions of .the residentially zoned property adjacent to the in- dustrial site were being used for industrial purposes which would raise the possi- bility of a zoning violation. We also discussed current ordinance parking standards for industrial uses and ex- plained the formula used for determining, parking on current industrial sites. We suggested that this could be a guideline for his use,and that it provides one parking space per every two employees based upon the maximum planned employment during any work period, or one space per each 800 sq. ft. of'gross floor area, whichever is greater. We also suggested that it might be worthwhile to provide blacktopping within the screened area, or provide an oil base as a means of reducing dust on the site. We noted that all of these improvements might well address some of the neighborhood concerns about the site. He stated that he would review these suggestions in light of costs for these proposals. Also during the conversation, Mr. Howe indicated that he had executed a stipulation agreement with the Minnesota Pollution Agency to address a number of the air and particulate matter problems that had recently been raised. We discussed a number of other items dealing generally with the site and the neighbor- hood concerns and left the meeting with the understanding that Mr. Howe would look into the possibility of providing screening on the site. Addition to Memo - July 28, 1978 During the course of our conversation with Bill Howe on July 26, 1978, there was discussion regarding the two single family residential homes adjacent to the Howe site. Mr. Howe explained that -he rented both properties. Upon checking with Andy Alberti, Housing Inspector, I found that the two residential properties were not licensed. I called Bill Howe today (7/31/78) to -tell him of the licensing requirements. I in- formed him that he would receive an application and a copy of the ordinance, and that he should respond to it as soon as possible. cc: G. G. Splinter, City Manager