Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986 04-10 PCM MINUTES OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER IN THE COUNTY OF HENNEPIN AND THE STATE OF MINNESOTA REGULAR SESSION APRIL 10, 1986 CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER The Planning Commission met in regular session and was called to order by Chairman George Lucht at 7:32 p.m. ROLL CALL Chairman George Lucht, Commissioners Molly Malecki, Carl Sandstrom, Lowell Ainas, Mike Nelson, Wallace Bernards and Ann Wallerstedt. Also present were Director of Planning and Inspection Ronald Warren and Planner Gary Shallcross. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - March 27, 1986 Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to approve the minutes of the March 27, 1986 Planning Commission meeting as submitted. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. Not voting: Commissioners Malecki and Ainas. The motion passed. The Secretary noted that there was no representative of Viking Gym present and recommended that the next application be considered. APPLICATION NO. 86016 (Color Converting Industries) Following the Chairman's explanation, the Secretary introduced the next item of business on the agenda, a request by Color Converting Industries for a determination that the storage, production and distribution of ink and ink components is similar in nature to other permitted uses in the I-1 zoning district. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86016 attached) . The Secretary referred to the memo of the Building Official which expressed concern regarding the use being located in the I-1 zoning district. The memo indicated that ink manufacture is generally located in the heavy industrial district. The Secretary also referred the Commission's attention to the material safety data sheets on the various materials to be used in the ink operation which had been supplied by the applicant. Commissioner Wallerstedt asked whether the proposed ink operation would add risk to other uses located in the industrial park. The Secretary answered that the proposed ink operation could probably meet the restrictions of the Building Code, but that if it was allowed as a permitted use in the I-1 district it could occupy an entire building and would pose a greater risk to the industrial park as a whole. He noted the low flash points of some of the chemicals involved in the ink operation and expressed concern regarding the potential damage due to afire. He also pointed out that there is a welding operation also located in the same building (6660 Shingle Creek Parkway) . Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that the flammability rating of a number of the chemicals was considered "serious"and asked how dangerous this was. The Secretary answered that he was not an expert on the flammability ratings, but that a rating of "serious" would certainly indicate more risk than other materials with a lower rating. Commissioner Wallerstedt noted that the media of extinguishment noted in the materials safety data sheets was in many cases foam rather than water. The Secretary answered that the sprinkler system can be modified and that a dry foam system can also be installed in storage areas. 4-10-86 -1- I Commissioner Sandstrom pointed out that the Building Official had stated that the tenant space could be modified to meet the code for this use. The Secretary answered that the concern of the staff is regarding the long range potential of the proposed use and the possibility of it becoming larger than presently proposed. Chairman Lucht asked where the drainage from this site flowed to. The Secretary answered that it was conveyed by storm sewer across Shingle Creek Parkway and partially over land and partially through storm sewer to Shingle Creek. Chairman Lucht then asked the applicant whether he had anything to add. Mr. Greg Peterson of Color Converting Industries then addressed the Commission. He stated that less than 50% of the material handled by CCI would be flammable and that less than half of the flammable materials would have flash points below 1000 Fahrenheit. He pointed out that the flash point of gasoline is -450 below Fahrenheit and that this very flammable liquid is allowed to be handled by the general public. He pointed out that the material that CCI would deal with would be handled by experts and not customers. He stated that he did not feel that the flammability question posed a severe problem for their use and that they would do whatever is necessary to modify the fire suppression system and to provide diking as required. There followed a rather lengthy question and answer session between Mr. Peterson and members of the Planning Commission. Mr. Peterson was asked about the CCI facility in Des Moines, Iowa. He explained that large volumes of flammable material were stored there and that the building was not sprinklered. He explained that the basic manufacturing activities took place in Des Moines and that mostly finished products which could be mixed would be stored and distributed from the Brooklyn Center location. He stated that there would be little, if any, wastes from the Brooklyn Center operation. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether CCI could live within the condition not to become a full manufacturing operation. Mr. Peterson responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether there would be any odor problems affecting other o er within the building. Mr. Peterson stated that there should not be since the ink would for the most part be confined to containers. Commissioner Bernards asked Mr. Peterson why he felt the operation was similar to other uses permitted in the I-1 zoning district. Mr. Peterson responded that they based their argument on the fact that printing and allied industries were allowed in the industrial park and also the manufacture of chemicals was allowed in the industrial park. Commissioner Malecki asked Mr. Peterson to compare the operation to a gas station. Mr. Peterson stated that a gas station is much more hazardous since the general public handles the hazardous materials. The Secretary noted that other chemicals can be manufactured in the I-1 zoning districts and cited the section of the ordinance listing these. He asked Mr. Peterson how hazardous the ink and component materials would be in comparison to those listed in the ordinance. Mr. Peterson stated that they were in the same category of hazard. He stated that color pigments used in toiletries are flammable as is the alcohol base. He also stated that polymers present in cleaning fluids are highly flammable. Mr. Peterson answered further questions on the flammability of the liquids to be stored at 6660 Shingle Creek Parkway. He stated that 50% of the materials would be flammable and that 50% of those flammables would be flammable solvents. 4-10-86 -2- Commissioner Sandstrom stated that the City has accepted other risks in the I-1 zoning district. He stated that the use proposed was not as hazardous as the plant in Des Moines. Commissioner Wallerstedt pointed out that other hazardous uses in the industrial park have been secondary, not primary uses. Commissioner Nelson stated that he was not sure whether a hazardous use would be considered the principal use here if less than half of the material is flammable. Commissioner Ainas stated that denying the use could open up a can of worms. He stated that manufacture of cleaning fluid is very hazardous, but that it is allowed in the industrial park. Chairman Lucht stated that it might be wise to make changes in the Zoning Ordinance to limit the degree of hazard allowed in the industrial park. Commissioner Sandstrom stated that he felt that the use was similar in nature to other uses in the I-1 zone. Commissioner Ainas agreed that it was less hazardous than for businesses which were listed as permitted uses in the I-1 zone. Commissioner Bernards stated that it might be permissible to have such a business in Brooklyn Center, but not in the I-1 zone. Chairman Lucht offered the option of amending the ordinance to allow the storage and manufacture of ink as a special use permit in the I-1 zone. The Secretary pointed out that a hazardous occupancy is generally accessory in other cases in the industrial park, but that it would be the primary occupancy in this case. Commissioner Sandstrom asked how much space would be devoted to this use. The representative of CCI answered 15,000 square feet. Commissioner Ainas questioned Mr. Peterson on the degree of flammability of the liquids and the storage practices. Mr. Peterson stated that between 1% and 5% of the products to be stored on the site would consist of chemicals with low flash points. He explained that any product with more than 1% of a flammable chemical was considered flammable. He stated that the flammable chemicals are isolated within the building at the Des Moines plant, but are not kept in a separate vault. Mr. Peterson went on to explain that ink businesses have a difficult time getting insurance and that the insurance industry closely regulates the practices of ink manufacturers. Commissioner Wallerstedt suggested that perhaps manufacturing should not be allowed, only the distribution of finished products. Commissioner Sandstrom suggested that CCI would have to come back for another determination if it wished to go into full scale manufacturing. The Secretary pointed out that if a determination is made that the use is similar in nature to other uses permitted in the industrial park, the business will not be back before the Planning Commission. He stated that the only conditions that would apply to a permitted use within an existing building in the industrial park would be the Building Code, Fire Code, and National Fire Protection Association Standards. Chairman Lucht suggested that a special use classification could allow for control of the use and size of the activity. Mr. Peterson explained that what would be done at the Brooklyn Center site would be blending of finished products, not manufacturing. He stated that many of the products stored on the site would be ready for sale, but could be mixed. He likened the proposed use to a paint store where paints can be mixed to achieve the desired color, except in this case there would be more mass shipment of products. There followed further lengthy discussion as to the nature of the use, the extent to which manufacturing actually took place, and the extent to which other activities constituted a wholesale trade use. Chairman Lucht and Commissioner Ainas expressed concern at the potential hazard allowed by the ordinance in the form of 4-10-86 -3- manufacturing, cleaning preparations and toiletries. The consensus of the discussion was that the operation could be acknowledged as a permitted use if limited to wholesale trade and blending (a mixing of compounds) , but not the manufacturing of ink from basic chemical components. Commissioner Bernards pointed out that the primary use in this case would be a hazardous occupancy involving the handling of flammable materials. Chairman Lucht pointed out that the ordinance allows the manufacture of other materials just as dangerous as those involved in this operation. ACTION RECOMMENDING A DETERMINATION THAT COLOR CONVERTING INDUSTRIES IS SIMILAR TO USES CONTAINED IN SECTION 35-330, SUBSECTION 1 b 2 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE Motion by ommissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Ainas to recommend that the City Council make a determination that the use proposed by Color Converting Industries at 6660 Shingle Creek Parkway would be similar in nature to the wholesale trade of chemicals as listed in Section 35-330, Subsection 1 b 2, but not similar to the manufacturing acitivies contained in Section 35-330, Subsection 1 a 7. Also acknowledged in the motion, is the requirement that the use be subject to all applicable building, fire and other safety and environmental codes. There followed a discussion of the motion. Commissioner Malecki stated that she felt at a loss to determine just how safe the chemicals involved in this operation would be. She suggested that a chemist interpret the material safety data sheets before the proposed use goes to the City Council. The Secretary pointed out that the use would be subject to all I-1 district restrictions. Voting in favor of the aforementioned motion, Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Nelson and Wallerstedt. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. Commissioner Bernards cited his earlier comments on the hazardous occupancy of the principal use proposed as the basis for his opposition. MOTION TO DIRECT STAFF TO STUDY THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 35-330, SUBSECTION 1a7 Motion by Commissioner Ainas seconded by Commissioner Nelson to direct staff to study the implications of language in Section 35-330, Subsection la7, which allows for the manufacture of chemicals, including some highly flammable chemicals within the industrial park. Commissioner Bernards stated that he felt that adding more language to the ordinance would only make it more restrictive and more difficult to interpret. He suggested leaving it as simple as possible. Commissioner Ainas agreed, but pointed out that some very hazardous activities are acknowledged in that section of the ordinance. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson and Wallerstedt. Voting against: Commissioner Bernards. The motion passed. APPLICATION NO. 86015 (Viking Gym) The Secretary then introduced the other item of business, a request for special use permit approval to expand the gymnasium use at 6502 Shingle Creek Parkway in the industrial building at the northeast corner of Shingle Creek Parkway and Freeway Boulevard. The Secretary noted that the applicant was not present, but suggested that the Planning Commission consider the application anyway. The Secretary reviewed the contents of the staff report (see Planning Commission Information Sheet for Application No. 86015 attached) . 4-10-86 -4- PUBLIC HEARING (APPLICATION NO. 86015) Chairman Lucht then opened the meeting for a public hearing. Noting that there was no one present to speak regarding the application, he called for a motion to close the public hearing. CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to close the public hearing. The motion passed unanimously. ACTION RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF APPLICATION NO. 86015 (Viking Gym) Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to recommend approval of Application No. 86015, subject to the following conditions: 1 . Building plans are subject to review and approval by the Building Official with respect to applicable codes prior to the issuance of permits. 2. The expanded gymnasium use is subject to the conditions on the original special use permit granted under Application No. 8203+. Voting in favor: Chairman Lucht, Commissioners Malecki, Sandstrom, Ainas, Nelson, Bernards and Wallerstedt. Voting against: none. The motion passed. DISCUSSION ITEMS a. Retail Parking Formula The Planner then reviewed with the Planning Commission a memo regarding a revised retail parking formula as suggested in the draft ordinance amendment attached to the Planning Commission's agenda. He noted the background evidence supporting the understanding that there is an excess requirement, particularly for smaller retail buildings. He then reviewed alternate formulas, including a formula suggested by the Urban Land Institute, parking formulas of other communities, and the draft formula contained in the ordinance amendment. The Planner went onto review some of the implications for existing development, new development and redevelopment as a result of the proposed formula change. Finally, he reviewed some of the major arguments in favor of and opposed to changing the ordinance formula for retail parking. He concluded by recommending that the formula be adopted. The Secretary and the Planner suggested that the Planning Commission review the memo in more detail and perhaps consider acting on the draft ordinance amendment at the next Planning Commission meeting or at some time in the future. Commissioner Sandstrom asked whether this ordinance change would affect office buildings. The Planner responded in the negative. b. Landscape Standards The Planner then distributed to the Planning Commission a draft ordinance on landscape planting standards. He noted that this draft had been distributed to the Planning Commission at an earlier meeting. He also gave the Planning Commission a list of six sites that had recently been reviewed by the Planning Commission and calculated the number of landscape points that each site plan would be credited with under the proposed pointing system. He noted that two of the six would not meet the standard tentatively offered. 4-10-86 _5_ The Planner mentioned that the intent of the pointing system is to make the point differentials between various types of plantings comparable to their price differential so that there would be no economic incentive to choose a particular planting type to meet the point requirements for a given type of development. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that the largest site, the Target/Ryan development, had the most difficult time meeting the standard, perhaps because it was so large and that a smaller fraction of the site would be devoted to green area. He suggested that perhaps the formula should take this factor into account. Chairman Lucht reviewed the point system and suggested different point levels based on his knowledge of the price of various planting types. Commissioner Wallerstedt suggested that perhaps there should be a minimum number of points derived from each planting type so that no one planting type is ignored in a landscape plan. She also requested that other sites be reviewed that have already been developed and that people are more familiar with. ADJOURNMENT Motion by Commissioner Nelson seconded by Commissioner Sandstrom to adjourn the meeting of the Planning Commission. The motion passed unanimously. The Planning Commission adjourned at 9:54 p.m. s r` a' an 4-10-86 -6-