Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-07-2007 MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING AGENDA November 7, 2007 -- 7:00 P.M. 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Approval of Minutes: A. October 3, 2007 4. Citizens Requests and Comments Relating to Planning and Zoning Issues Not Already Present on the Agenda. (Before speaking, please give your full name and address for the minutes.) 5. Planning Cases A. CU2006-009 Public Hearing to Consider a Conditional Use Permit to Allow for Storage of Flammable Liquids Applicant: 7T’s Management Address: 4815 Mustang Circle 6. Other Planning Activity A. Planning Commission term expirations 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. November 21, 2007 – NO MEETING B. December 5, 2007 8. Adjourn to Agenda Session Agenda Session 1. Review Minutes: a. October 17, 2007 2. Staff Reports a. Upcoming Planning Cases 3. Chairperson and Planning Commissioners’ Reports 4. Meeting Conclusion PROCEEDINGS OF THE MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA Regular Meeting October 17, 2007 Mounds View City Hall 2401 Highway 10, Mounds View, MN 55112 ______________________________________________________________________________ 1. Call to Order Chair Stevenson called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. October 17, 2007 ______________________________________________________________________________ 2. Roll Call Members Present: Chair Stevenson; Commissioners Cramblit, Gunn, Lang, Meehlhause, Miller, and Walsh-Kaczmarek Absent and Excused: None Also Present: Planning Associate Heller ________________________________________________________________________ Index to Minutes Page Comprehensive Plan Update 2 ______________________________________________________________________________ 3. Approve Minutes A. September 19, 2007. MOTION/SECOND: Cramblit/Walsh-Kaczmarek, to approve the minutes of the September 19, 2007 regular Planning Commission meeting as amended. Ayes – 7 Nays – 0 Motion carried. ______________________________________________________________________________ 4. Citizens Requests and Comments on Items Not on the Agenda None ______________________________________________________________________________ 5. Planning Cases None Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 2 6. Other Planning Activities A. Comp Plan 2008 Update Planning Associate Heller explained the Planning Commission would discuss the Chapter 4 - Housing section of the Comprehensive Plan. She included a report from the Met Council on affordable housing. She reported the Met Council assigns each city a number of additional affordable housing units that they should be planning for. Mounds View’s fair share amount is 81 units. She stated Mounds View already has a significant amount of affordable housing with a wide range of opportunities for both rental and ownership. She explained the Met Council bases the number of affordable housing units on the types of jobs in a given community and access to public transportation. Planning Associate Heller directed the Commission through Chapter 4 of the Comprehensive Plan. Commissioner Gunn referenced Item H and questioned if Mounds View participated in a first time homebuyers program. Planning Associate Heller replied that Ramsey County offers a first time homebuyers program. Chair Stevenson asked if townhomes were included in the single-family homesteaded chart. Planning Associate Heller replied she believed they were. She stated the chart requires updating. Commissioner Gunn referenced Item 44-I - Point of Sale and Truth in Housing and questioned whether Mounds View was participating in these programs. Planning Associate Heller replied Mounds View has not started these programs and it is questionable whether it would. She explained the programs require homes be brought up to code prior to sale. Commissioner Gunn asked if the Property Managers Coalition was still active. Planning Associate Heller replied it was active and that single family home rental properties may be added in to the city’s rental licensing program. Commissioner Miller questioned if the programs listed in Goal 1 Policy h were still available. Planning Associate Heller replied the Housing Resource Center handles these programs. She stated loan programs are available that are not being taken advantage of. Commissioner Gunn questioned whether the Housing Resource Center should be referenced in several of these Items. Planning Associate Heller replied it could be added where appropriate. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 3 Discussion ensued on updated information on housing statistics. Chair Stevenson asked when the most recent information would be pulled. Planning Associate Heller replied she would research information over the next nine months. Commissioner Miller pointed out the County Assessor’s data on housing conditions and asked if homes are actually looked at. Planning Associate Heller replied this information comes from the County Assessor’s office. She stated the County receives building permit information which is one way they determine home values. Commissioner Cramblit commented the housing conditions are a drive-by determination. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek commented it might be advantageous to have a local entity make a determination on housing conditions rather than the county. Planning Associate Heller commented she believes city staff has a good grasp of what is going on in the City. Commissioner Gunn commented on subsidized and Section 8 housing. Planning Associate Heller explained the difference between the types of subsidized housing and Section 8. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek questioned whether the Met Council enforces the number of affordable housing units that each city is asked to plan for. Planning Associate Heller replied that the Metropolitan Council realizes that cities can not control the housing market, but they also should not be preventing expected growth or affordable housing opportunities. She commented that cities can designate land for higher density housing which is typically the only way any new housing can be made affordable now without some type of subsidies. Commissioner Gunn questioned whether the lot sizes on Table 16 were correct. Planning Associate Heller replied they were, and came from the zoning code. Planning Associate Heller explained the stars signify Mounds View’s benchmarks and that we have met or exceeded the Met Council’s expectations. Chair Stevenson commented the charts should include both single family detached and single family attached categories. Commissioner Walsh-Kaczmarek recommended standardizing all the charts. Mounds View Planning Commission October 17, 2007 Regular Meeting Page 4 Commissioner Gunn questioned the reference to manufactured housing on page 57 and that it didn’t necessarily fit into this section. Consensus reached that this section needs rewriting. Planning Associate Heller stated the next Comprehensive Plan Taskforce meeting is at 6:00 p.m. on November 14, 2007. She reported a member from the Met Council and the city’s housing and code enforcement inspector would be attending this meeting. Planning Associate Heller explained the process involved in updating the Comprehensive Plan. Chair Stevenson explained that what the Planning Commission and City Council executes through the Comprehensive Plan determines the land use map and the future of Mounds View. ______________________________________________________________________________ 7. Next Planning Commission Meetings: A. November 7, 2007 B. November 21, 2007 ______________________________________________________________________________ 8. Adjournment to Agenda Session There being no further business before the Planning Commission, Chair Stevenson adjourned the meeting at 8:41 p.m. (The meeting immediately adjourned to the Agenda Session.) Respectfully submitted, Jim Ericson Community Development Director Transcribed by: Dianna Wise TimeSaver Off Site Secretarial, Inc. Item No: 5A Meeting Date: November 7, 2007 Type of Business: Public Hearing City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Consideration of a Conditional Use Permit for the Storage of Flammable Liquids at 4815 Mustang Circle; Planning Case No. CU2006-009 Introduction: The applicant for this case is 7T’s Management, which owns one of the lots upon which Tyson Company is situated. They are requesting approval of a conditional use permit to allow for the storage of flammable liquids on their property located at 4825 Mustang Circle. The site is zoned “Industrial” and currently encompasses four lots for a total of approximately 20 acres. The applicant is currently working with Ferrellgas in New Brighton to relocate their business onto the southern part of their property. Currently Ferrellgas is located at 1430 Old Highway 8, New Brighton, in the northwest quadrant area that is being redeveloped, and the city is buying their property. Tyson Company currently has a Conditional Use Permit in order to allow for a motor freight terminal. An amendment to the current Conditional Use Permit is required in order to allow for the storage of flammable liquids in an industrial zoned district. Ferrellgas sells propane gas and the site would have three 30,000 gallon above ground storage tanks, along with two smaller buildings, similar to their current site. They would have four to eight employees on site (more employees during the winter). Ferrellgas has been in existence since 1939 and is the nation’s leading retail propane company. They serve all 50 states, Canada and Puerto Rico. They have been located in New Brighton for the last several years. There has been a propane business in the same New Brighton location for decades, but it has been sold a few times over the years to different companies, with Ferrellgas being the most recent owner. This planning case first came before the Planning Commission in October 2006. The Planning Commission tabled the case and requested a risk management plan be submitted to the City by Ferrellgas. At that time, Tyson was proposing to place Ferrellgas to the west of Fedtech’s building on the southern part of this lot, due to Tyson’s plans for their own new building. In this location Ferrellgas would have been at least 400 feet off of the street and fairly well hidden from street view behind Fedtech’s building. Discussion: Section 1116.04 of the Zoning Code conditionally allows storage of flammable liquids as a conditional use in Industrial districts. The applicant is proposing to have three main above ground propane tanks and will construct two smaller buildings, approximately 1,500 square feet and 1,800 square feet, for office space, storage, and a dock for cylinder filling. Tyson CUP Staff Report Page 2 CUP Considerations: With every Conditional Use Permit application, Chapter 1125 of the Zoning Code requires that the Planning Commission review and address any potential adverse effects which include, but are not limited to; relationship with the Comprehensive Plan, geographical area involved, potential depreciation, the character of the surrounding area, traffic, adequate utilities and access roads and the demonstrated need for such a use. Each of these potential adverse effects is reviewed and addressed: Relationship with the Comprehensive Plan: The Comprehensive Plan encourages the expansion of existing businesses and introduction of new businesses within Mounds View. 4825 Mustang Circle and all the surrounding properties are designated as light or heavy industrial on the Land Use Map. The four lots making up Tyson’s property are not consistently designated. The northernmost lot is designated as Heavy Industrial due to that being the primary location of their current building, and the other three lots are designated as Light Industrial, including the lot where Ferrellgas is proposed to be located. The proposed propane gas facility could be inconsistent with the Comp Plan, as the characteristics of Ferrellgas fall more in the heavy industrial definition. The light and heavy industrial designations as defined in the Comp Plan are as follows: Light Industrial – Land used primarily in the manufacture, processing, fabrication, assembly, packaging, incidental storage, sales, and distribution of predominantly prepared materials, finished products or parts. Light industrial uses would typically have all processing within buildings, require limited exterior storage, generate limited amounts of truck traffic, and be free of hazardous or objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, glare or other pollutants. Examples include greenhouses, food and drink processing plants and storage, light manufacturing and assembly, small machine and tool and die shops, flex industrial centers, mini-warehouses, and research and development facilities. Heavy Industrial – Land used primarily in the manufacture and/or processing of products from large bulky predominantly raw, extracted, or hazardous materials; or use engaged in the storage of flammable, explosive, or other materials that may pose a threat to public health or safety. Heavy industrial uses may require exterior storage of large equipment or material, be engaged in outside processing or assembly, generate significant amounts of truck or rail traffic, or emit limited amounts of objectionable elements such as noise, odor, dust, smoke, glare, or other pollutants. Examples would include foundaries and heavy manufacturing plants, grain elevators, and commercial warehouses. The Geographical Area Involved: The proposed business would be located on Mustang Circle, in the center of the Mounds View Industrial Park. A propane gas business would not necessarily be out of place for this industrial area, and the size of the property would easily accommodate the proposal. Tyson Company owns four parcels totaling approximately 20 acres. Ferrellgas is proposed to be located on the most southern lot, which is 10 acres in size, although Ferrellgas would occupy only a few acres of this lot. Ferrellgas would be located directly adjacent to Mustang Drive/Circle, where Tyson currently has a parking lot for their Trailwood Transportation division. Fedtech, a precision laser and water jet cutting business, is located immediately adjacent to the property to the south. Tyson CUP Staff Report Page 3 Depreciation: The proposed propane gas facility may not necessarily be visually attractive, although this is an industrial area and screening could be used. There are also concerns about the propane odor that may come from this business. The lot proposed for Ferrellgas is between Tyson’s current buildings and a light industrial building with several tenants (including Fedtech & AccuStream), with BelAir Excavating to the far south in New Brighton, and Ramsey County Park open space to the west. This particular property is currently a parking lot, open space and wetlands. A development review would be required if this request is approved, and at that time, site details such as screening could be addressed. The Character of the Surrounding Area: This part of the City is mostly an Industrial area. There is a manufactured home community at the north end of the entire Tyson property, with a natural vegetative buffer separating the properties. Townsedge Terrace has approximately 230 homes in the park and is within 700 feet of the proposed Ferrellgas site. All other properties surrounding the subject property are zoned Industrial or are park open space. Access to Ferrellgas would be directly off Mustang Drive/Circle. The proposed propane gas facility may not necessarily be out of character in this industrial area. Traffic: Ferrellgas would operate approximately five trucks out of this facility, and each truck typically makes six trips per day. They do also have will-call customers that would come to the facility to fill portable tanks. The facility would be open from 7:00am to 5:00pm. This area already has high truck traffic due to the existing businesses in the industrial park, so additional traffic to this new business may not be very noticeable. Adequate utilities and access roads are available: The water and sewer lines that currently serve the area should have adequate capacity to provide for this improvement. Ferrellgas would not be a large user of either water or sewer. The site is located right off Old Highway 8 which has good access to nearby highways and freeways. The Demonstrated Need for Such a Use: Ferrellgas must relocate from their current location in New Brighton and would like to stay in the same area, and Tyson has an opportunity to generate additional revenue from their large amount of underutilized land. Fire Safety Considerations: Propane storage falls under the requirements of the fire code. The Fire Marshall along with an independent fire engineering consultant (Futrell Fire Consult & Design) have reviewed the risk management plan that was submitted by Ferrellgas. Futrell’s summary comments said they feel that Ferrellgas takes a proactive approach to safety and intends to meet or exceed the minimum adopted codes when their policies are followed. Although, the information and plans that were submitted by Ferrellgas lacked details and consistency, and other information that would have helped Futrell be able to make a more thorough recommendation. Both the Mounds View Fire Marshall and Futrell strongly recommend if the request for a CUP is approved, that additional fire protection features be required due to the amount of nearby businesses and a large residential neighborhood about 700 feet away. There are two articles included in this report about a recent incident involving a propane truck that ignited and exploded while filling tanks at a foundary. These articles describe how a large radius area can be involved with an explosion. Tyson CUP Staff Report Page 4 Staff is concerned about the potential fire issues due to the close proximity of Ferrellgas to the existing businesses in the industrial park, and the Townsedge Terrace manufactured home community to the north. Due to the geographical location of this industrial park within the city, this is one of the most distant Mounds View areas for the SBM Fire Department to respond to. Fire Department response time for water application to this location exceeds the time outlined for development of extremely hazardous conditions as outlined under NFPA 58 (National Fire Protection Association), and no special protections have been proposed to address this deficiency. (Futrell indicates in their report that this alone should have sounded warning bells to the person conducting the analysis, but it didn’t). Another concern is the limited accessibility to and around this particular site. Mustang Drive is the only access into the industrial park, and there is very limited ability for the fire department to access all sides of the Ferrellgas site since Long Lake Regional Park and large industrial buildings surround this property. Public Input: This meeting is a public hearing. Staff has mailed letters to the neighboring businesses in this industrial park, and the Townsedge Terrace manufactured home park owner and managers to notify them of the proposed project. Kathi Osmonson, Mounds View Building Official/Fire Marshall, will be attending this meeting. Summary: 7T’s Management is requesting approval for a conditional use permit for the “storage of flammable liquid,” which would allow Ferrellgas to relocate onto their property. The Zoning Code conditionally allows for this type of use in an Industrial district. Recommendations: After holding the public hearing and taking testimony from staff and the applicant, the Commission can take one of the following actions related to the request: 1. Recommend approval of the conditional use permit. If the Planning Commission selects this option, Staff would need to be directed to draft a resolution recommending approval. If the Commission chooses to act on this option, Staff will provide the resolution to the Commission at the next meeting. 2. Recommend denial of the conditional use permit. Resolution 875-07 is attached if the Commission selects this option. 3. Table the request. If additional information is needed before a decision can be rendered or if more discussion is needed, the Commission can simply move to table the request until such information has been provided. Respectfully submitted, Heidi Heller Planning Associate Tyson CUP Staff Report Page 5 Attachments: 1. Application 2. Zoning Map 3. Aerial View 4. Ferrellgas Site Plan 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. 700 foot and 1,000 foot radius maps 7. Plan Review Comments from Kathi Osmonson, Building Official/Fire Marshall 8. Review of Ferrellgas Risk Management Plan by Futrell Fire Consult & Design, Inc. 9. Articles about a propane explosion in Tacoma, Washington 10. “Facts About Propane” from the National Propane Gas Association 11. Letter from Fedtech – dated 10-4-06 12. Letter from Dymax – dated 10-4-06 13. Resolution 875-07 Ferrellgas site Tyson Lot 4 Tyson Lot 3 Tyson Lot 2 Tyson Lot 1 Zoning Map ↑ N Aerial View Townsedge Terrace Neighborhood Proposed location for Ferrellgas 4 main large (30,000 gallon) above ground tanks – 3 tanks would relocated Current Ferrellgas site in New Brighton 1430 Old Highway 8 Ferrellgas Site Plan Comp Plan Map October 1, 2007 Kathi Osmonson Fire Marshal/Building Official City of Mounds View 2401 Highway 10 Mounds View, MN 55112 RE: Ferrellgas LP Tank Installation 4825 Mustang Circle, Mounds View, MN 55112 Results of Plan Review Dear Kathi: At your request, I have reviewed the proposed Ferrellgas LP Tank installation drawings, material submittal and Product Release Prevention and Incident Preparedness Review (i.e. Fire Safety Analysis) for the proposed installation at 4825 Mustang Circle. This letter details my review of the submittal to determine if it is in reasonable compliance with the 2007 Minnesota State Fire Code and the 2004 edition of NFPA 58. Futrell Fire Consult and Design Inc. (FFCDI) is involved in the review of this submittal based on your city’s contract with us to provide plan review services to the City of Mounds View. Any comments in this review should be considered recommendations for your consideration, since FFCDI is not the Authority Having Jurisdiction for fire protection issues in the City of Mounds View, nor is FFCDI the engineer or designer of record for this project. The scope of this review is limited to the three relocated stationary LP gas tanks with related piping and should not be considered a comprehensive review of all applicable Building and Fire Code provisions for this project (egress, height and area, type of construction, fire department access, fire protection systems, local requirements, etc. were not reviewed). Plan review for the cylinder loading dock and office building, other than as they relate to the tank installation, are outside the scope of this work. Any opinion of compliance should in no way be construed as approval or acceptance of the submittal until it has received approval from the City of Mounds View. This letter does not authorize the contractor to purchase materials or begin installation on the project. Finally, this Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 2 of 10 October 1, 2007 review is based on evaluation with the codes and standards applicable to Minnesota and does not include determining compliance with provisions in bid documents, contracts, health and safety standards, environmental provisions, or insurance standards. MATERIALS REVIEWED This review is based on the following materials submitted to FFCDI: • Boundary Topographic Survey prepared by Metro Land Surveying and Engineering dated 5/23/07 (1 page). • Fourteen .pdf files containing product information – various dates. • Worksheets for the Ferrellgas Product Release Prevention and Incident Preparedness Review, undated (39 pages). • Ferrellgas Risk Management plan document containing a Fire Safety Analysis based upon the 2001 edition of NFPA 58 (90 pages). • Piping layout drawing produced by Burns & McDonnell dated 07-27-07 (1 page). • Mounds View plan review comments dated February 21, 2007 (1 page). • Twelve .pdf files representing a portion of the Ferrellgas Safety and Technical Support Policy Manual for Tank Installations dated 8/00. The following items represent questions or issues dealing with the submitted materials: 1. The manufacturer’s data sheets show dozens of different model numbers, sizes, types, finishes or configurations, with no indication as to which specific items are to be installed. 2. It is also necessary to recognize that no complete detailed drawing of the actual proposed tank piping was submitted for review which shows what components are to be used where. A number of manufacturer’s data sheets were provided, along with a limited number of typical installation detail sketches. These provided only a general overview of the installation, while showing a range of possible installation configurations, thus failing to identify the actual final installation configuration for this project. No installation drawings were specific to this three tank manifold installation with connection to a loading dock. 3. No drawings or information other than a site sketch were provided for the outside cylinder storage, the cylinder loading dock, or the office building and as such their review is limited to spacing criteria relating to the tank installation. A detailed review of these areas is outside the scope of the current work, but as we discussed on the phone last week and at your request, I’m including a few additional observations relating to the exterior cylinder storage and cylinder loading dock for your consideration. 4. As indicated above, the submission includes a portion of the Ferrellgas Safety and Technical Support Policy Manual for Tank Installations. Nowhere is it indicated that Ferrellgas will follow the internal policies included in the manual, requiring the plan reviewer to infer that the guidance will be incorporated. If the provided twelve policy chapters are forming the basis for how this system will be installed, then the submission should state so and the chapters incorporated into the permit requirements. Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 3 of 10 October 1, 2007 5. Over 30 pages of Fisher data sheets were provided for pressure regulators, including ones intended for residential service, yet there is no indication as to where the regulators will be used or what types will be installed. 6. No data was provided on the REGO A751 primary shutoff valve indicated in the Incident Prevention Review. 7. Other than the tanks, it is expected that all other components will be new and not reused. Where the submission or this review is silent on equipment, installation methods, procedures, or other fire and safety provisions, it is expected that Ferrellgas will be in compliance with the codes and standards adopted in Minnesota as identified below. It is expected that this review would need to be modified based on information not included in the above list, should all of the relevant material not be provided. STANDARDS USED TO CONDUCT THIS REVIEW This plan review is based on the following standards as adopted in Minnesota: • Minnesota State Fire Code (2007) comprised of the 2006 International Fire Code plus state amendments (MSFC). • Minnesota State Building Code (2007) comprised of the 2006 International Building Code, plus state amendments (SBC). • 2004 edition of NFPA 58, LP-Gas Code, as adopted and amended in Minnesota. No additional City of Mounds View ordinances or policies were identified to use for this review. RESULT OF THE PLAN REVIEW – GENERAL COMPLIANCE WITH NFPA 58 This plan review will first address general compliance with the requirements found in the 2004 edition of NFPA 58, then will focus on the Product Release Prevention and Incident Preparedness Review, also known as an Incident Prevention Review or Fire Safety Analysis. Tank Installation 1. Tank construction and marking – NFPA 58 Section 5.2.1.1 addresses the types of tanks and construction standards for LP-gas usage. No information was provided in the submission relating to the construction of these three tanks manufactured in 1956, other than to indicate they are ASME. Given that the tanks are over a half century old, Ferrellgas should provide verification that the tanks meet the design, fabrication, testing and marking requirements and are still qualified for LP-gas service according to the ASME Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code, Section VIII (or clearly indicate if a different standard is used). Reuse of tanks fabricated to earlier editions of regulations, rules, codes, or standards, but reinstalled as part of a new installation, should be considered in the risk assessment for this facility (if applicable). 2. Pressure Relief Valve Sizing – Exact tank surface areas were not indicated, nor is the proposed size of the emergency pressure relief valve on each tank given, thus it was not Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 4 of 10 October 1, 2007 possible to verify that the relief valve sizing is adequate for this installation according to NFPA 58 Table 5.7.2.5. Multiple pages of manufacturer’s data on relief valves were provided with no indication as to which valve model, size, or flow rate is to be installed. 3. Tank Appurtenances – NFPA 58 allows a number of configurations for vapor and liquid openings, yet the submission isn’t specific as to which option will be used. For example, in the Incident Prevention Review Emergency Controls Section on Page 2, boxes #1 and #4 are both checked, leading to confusion if internal valves will be used or external emergency shutoff valves are. The generic tank installation details provided to show the piping also show multiple combinations of valves forming code complying designs, thus it isn’t clear WHICH option is used. Is it intended that the installation also complies with the Ferrellgas Safety and Technical Support Policy Manual for Tank Installations? If so, only internal valves are used, thus for tank openings the submission would appear to be in substantial compliance with NFPA 58. 4. Piping – NFPA 58 Section 5.8 addresses piping and there is no information in the submission on the type of pipe, tubing or hose used, construction materials, specifications, etc. Is it intended that the installation also comply with the Ferrellgas Safety and Technical Support Policy Manual for Tank Installations? If so, it appears the submission would be in substantial compliance with NFPA 58. 5. Tank Separation Distances – As shown on the plot plan, a minimum 50 foot clearance is provided to property lines, buildings, etc. and as a result is in substantial compliance with NFPA 58 Section 6.3. 6. Separation Distances to Transfer Operations – Spacing requirements for points of transfer contained in NFPA 58 Table 6.5.3 apply to the cylinder loading dock. If the office building is constructed of anything other than minimum one-hour fire-resistive exterior walls, it appears to be less than the 25 feet required by NFPA 58 Table 6.5.3 (B). Similarly, the outside storage is too close to containers being filled and doesn’t provide the minimum 10 foot separation required by NFPA 58 Table 6.5.3 (I) and Section 6.16.2.1. 7. Protection From Damage – No information was provided to review concerning protection from damage as required by NFPA 58 Sections 6.6.1.2, 6.10.8 and MSFC Section 312 (adequacy will need to be verified on site). 8. Container Support – No information was provided to review concerning container support as required by NFPA 58 Section 6.6.3. Is it intended that the installation also comply with the Ferrellgas Safety and Technical Support Policy Manual for Tank Installations? If so, container supports would be in substantial compliance with NFPA 58. 9. Emergency Shut Off Valves and Remote Manual Shutoff Stations – are not shown on the plot plan, thus compliance with NFPA 58 Section 6.10 will need to be verified on site. Proper separation distances are indicated in the submission, but due to a lack of a drawing showing their location, it isn’t possible to review the locations to assure they are not blocked, are in the direction of egress, and are visible. 10. Electrical Equipment – No information on extent of electrically rated equipment, etc. was provided, thus compliance with NFPA 58 Sections 6.16.4 and 6.20.2 could not be verified (the Incident Prevention Review does indicate the electrical equipment and wiring will be installed according to NFPA 58 and NFPA 70, however). Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 5 of 10 October 1, 2007 11. Inspection, Operations and Maintenance – No detailed plans or procedures specific to this facility were provided to evaluate NFPA 58 compliance. Portions of a plan were included in the Ferrellgas policies provided and if followed, would appear to provide substantial compliance in those areas addressed. Cylinder Loading Dock and Outside Cylinder Storage No detailed design information is provided on the construction, piping, mechanical systems, or fire protection features associated with the cylinder loading dock. Given that many LP-gas bulk plants are constructed in out state areas without Building Code enforcement, there is sometimes a failure to realize the construction provisions that may apply. If the cylinder loading dock meets the definition of a building, then it will most likely be a High Hazard, Group H-2, occupancy and fall under the requirements of SBC Sections 307, 414 and 415.6.3. Buildings housing H-2 occupancies would be expected to address code provisions for suppression systems, type of construction, separation from other buildings/occupancies, and finally explosion control (see SBC Section 414.5.1, for example). According to Chapter 27’s Scope in the MSFC, the hazardous materials requirements in the IFC apply to LP-gas even when regulated elsewhere in the Code. The following are a few of the provisions you’ll want to consider in reviewing the dock and outside cylinder storage: 1. Permit requirements – especially limitations placed on the storage quantities, locations, heights, etc. 2. Hazardous Materials Management Plan (MSFC Section 2701.5.1) 3. Hazardous Materials Inventory Statement (MSFC Section 2701.5.2). 4. Quantity Limits for Outside Storage (MSFC Table 2703.1.1(3). For outdoor cylinder storage exceeding the Maximum Allowable Quantities in MSFC Table 2703.1.1(3), MSFC Chapter 2704 applies and specifically Section 2704.11 on clearances to combustibles. 5. Required leak detection and emergency shut off or excess flow for the cylinder loading dock (MSFC Section 2703.2, including 2703.2.2.1(6)). 6. MSFC Section 2705 for Use, Dispensing and Handling when exceeding the Maximum Allowable Quantities in the cylinder loading dock. 7. Chapter 30 in the MSFC on compressed gases also applies to LP-gas. There are only a few fire safety requirements in the adopted codes specific to the outdoor storage of LP-gas cylinders at a bulk plant. Chapter 8 of the 2004 edition of NFPA 58 contains provisions on the storage of cylinders awaiting use, resale or exchange, but there is an exception to indicate this chapter doesn’t apply to storage of cylinders at bulk plants. This leaves few adopted provisions related to quantities that can be stored, pile size and height, storage configuration, distances to combustibles, separation from buildings, and distances to property lines. It is recommended more details on the exterior cylinder storage be provided to allow a review of these items. Long term limitations to the outside cylinder storage could be addressed in the permit, Hazardous Materials Management Plan, or zoning. Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 6 of 10 October 1, 2007 Realize further that the Fire Safety Analysis submitted for review only addresses the three above ground tanks and is not intended to address the cylinder loading dock or outside storage. As such, issues like required water supply, necessary fire department response levels, storage of new style composite cylinders, risk to and from exterior exposures (i.e. buildings and the mobile home park), access, and storage limitations are not addressed. EVALUATION OF THE INCIDENT PREVENTION REVIEW Two different versions of a Product Release Prevention and Incident Preparedness Review (i.e. Incident Prevention Review or Fire Safety Analysis) were submitted and although similar, the two are not identical. The older version contains 90 pages and is based on the 2001 edition of NFPA 58, while the version consisting of only 39 pages of worksheets appears to be based on the 2004 edition of NFPA 58. Neither document is dated, so it was not possible to determine absolutely which analysis governs, so for purposes of this review the 39 pages using the 2004 edition of NFPA 58 will be used as the basis for compliance with NFPA 58 Section 6.23.3 which states: 6.23.3.1 Fire protection shall be provided for installations with an aggregate water capacity of more than 4000 gal and of ASME containers on roofs. 6.23.3.2 The modes of fire protection shall be specified in a written product release prevention and incident preparedness review. The following represent the comments and observations I have relating to the Incident Prevention Review: 1. Miscellaneous Storage and Vehicles Section (page 8) – This section indicates there are nearly 1,900 containers that will be on site, both full and empty, with a combined capacity potentially exceeding 200,000 lbs (47,000 gallons) of propane. As already discussed, the Incident Prevention Review doesn’t include release scenarios or hazard introduced by the outside storage. Likewise, water application to the outside storage during a fire is not factored into the analysis. The number of cylinders identified on page 1 of the Summary worksheet conflicts with this section. 2. Emergency Controls Section (page 2) – There is a conflict between the top of the table which indicates that the “product control system meets alternate redundant, fail-safe requirements” and line #11 below which is marked no, yet is required for the redundant, fail-safety system. This also conflicts with the information on page 1 of the Summary. Ferrellgas needs to clarify if complete redundant, fail-safe protection according to NFPA 58 is provided. 3. Physical Protection and Other Measures Section (page 1) – Line #2 is marked N/A, yet is required to be addressed according to NFPA 58 Sections 6.16.5 and 6.23.2.1. A security plan and training should be developed and approved prior to occupancy. 4. Points of Transfer Section (page 5) – The minimum separation distances in lines #1 and #10 are not provided according to the site diagram. This was discussed earlier in the section of this review relating to separation distances to transfer operations. Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 7 of 10 October 1, 2007 5. Special Protection Section (page 6 and 7) – The boxes indicating “no passive special protection is used” and “no active special protection is used” are checked, thus identifying that no additional fire protection above code minimum is planned for this installation. There is no discussion or analysis to indicate how this was determined or to support such a conclusion. Exactly the opposite, this conflicts with the Exposures to Facility From External Hazards worksheet (page 3) – which indicates there is a hazard to the LP-Gas facility from the adjacent metal cutting, welding, and metal fabrication building. The conclusion of the analysis that no additional fire protection is necessary is in conflict with results of other worksheets, including water supply and fire department response. 6. Types of Exposure Section (page 1) - A large mobile home park is located within 500 feet of the proposed installation, yet was not included in the analysis. 7. Exposures to Facility from External Hazards (page 3) – A hazard was determined to exist from the adjacent metal cutting, welding and metal fabrication building, yet there is no indication as to the steps that are proposed to be taken to address the hazard. The analysis also fails to include the hazard from the adjacent high piled combustible storage (i.e. nothing in the worksheet analysis or hazard calculation deals with an exposure from a three dimensional warehouse fire). 8. Potential Release Scenarios Section (page 4) - The product release scenarios in the Incident Prevention Review are generic (the default ones from the analysis workbook) and do not cover the actual site conditions or piping arrangements, nor do they include releases from three tanks interconnected via a manifold, the container filling operation, or outdoor storage of 1,900 cylinders. 9. Fire Department Capabilities Section (page 2) – Line items #6 and #7 are blank. 10. Fire Department Response Time Section (page 3) – As provided by the City, it is expected that 11 to 15 minutes are necessary from alarm receipt to arrival on the scene and doesn’t include additional time necessary for establishing a water supply, pulling hoses, operating pumps and applying water. Suffice to say it is even longer than 11 to 15 minutes for water to be applied to a tank if the initial incident involves ignition of any release (i.e. a fire happens at the start of an incident). Such a result should have sounded warning bells for the person conducting the analysis, but it didn’t, and neither did the guidance in the NFPA/NPGA Manual for conducting such an analysis under the 2004 edition of NFPA 58. Here is what page 8-7 of the NFPA/NPGA Fire Safety Analysis Manual for LP-Gas Storage Facilities indicates when evaluating fire department response time [note: the same language is in the Ferrellgas Policy version of the analysis manual]: …If the capability to apply cooling water within the first 10 minutes of initial fire exposure to the container is not present, extremely dangerous conditions could begin to develop. Note that it will take several minutes after the apparatus arrives at the facility gate before cooling water is actually applied to the containers and that hand held hose lines will be used with water supplied from the water tank on the apparatus…. This analysis has therefore ignored the fact that the fire department response time for water application will exceed the time for development of “extremely hazardous Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 8 of 10 October 1, 2007 conditions”, while still not recommending that any additional fire protection be provided over and above code minimum. 11. Water Flow Rate Section (page 4) – this table indicates that a total of 854 gpm is necessary to cool the containers and for firefighter protection when approaching containers. This value is NOT conservative in that it ignores additional water for protection of transport trucks, the cylinder loading dock, outside storage, and the office building. Likewise, the flow rates calculated for tank cooling are dangerously low, given the technically unsupported assumption that only one-half of any tank will require cooling water. No authoritative document or study could be found to justify an assumption that the fire department will only need to apply cooling water to one-half of an LP tank, while leaving the remainder dry. 12. There are references in the analysis to a pneumatic system that only opens the internal tank valves during product transfer. Design details for this should be confirmed by Ferrellgas and field verified that they meet NFPA 58 requirements. 13. The impact of a security breach is required to be considered by the analysis according to NFPA 58 Section 6.23.2.1, but was not. 14. A critical item ignored by the analysis is the limited fire department access that is available, which is basically one road into the area via Mustang Drive. Long Lake Regional Park on the west and large industrial buildings on the north and south greatly constrain the fire department incident commander’s options when dealing with an incident at this site. NFPA 58 Section A.6.23.3 recommends site congestion be considered as part of an analysis. SUMMARY Based on the Ferrellgas Safety and Technical Support Policies provided with the submission, it is clear that Ferrellgas takes a proactive approach to safety and intends to meet or exceed the minimum adopted codes when their policies are followed. The difficulty with this review, however, is the lack of drawings, reports, or specifications indicating exactly how this installation will come together. Several requests were made to obtain the design information typical for such an installation, and due to its absence, will require field verification of much of the installation. If the assumptions made in this plan review are not correct (i.e. container support, tank appurtenances, internal valves, inspection, testing, and maintenance, and so on) then the design does not appear to be complete or in substantial compliance with the adopted codes. Ferrellgas must realize that any code required changes found in the field will need to be made at their expense. A thorough examination of the Incident Prevention Review has been conducted and based on the information available; I am unable to support Ferrellgas’ conclusion in the Review that additional fire protection is not necessary for this installation. The Review is not internally consistent in that it doesn’t follow its own recommendations or address identified hazards. It is for this reason that I strongly recommend additional fire protection over and above the code minimum requirements be provided and as supported by the following: Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 9 of 10 October 1, 2007 1. Fire department response time and creation of hazardous conditions before cooling water can be applied. 2. Site congestion, including limited fire department access (wind direction may preclude access in the one available direction), and adjacent buildings. 3. Exposure and increased opportunity for product release from the outside storage and cylinder filling dock. 4. Hazards from adjacent exposures as indicated in the analysis. 5. Non-conservative water supply requirements determined by the analysis. 6. Fire fighting resource needs and water supply discussions in the Incident Prevention Review only apply to the three aboveground tanks – no consideration is given to fire control for the cylinder filling dock or outside storage. 7. Hazards to surrounding occupancies, including the trailer park, are not considered in the Incident Prevention Review for a fire involving the outdoor storage and the possibility of rocketing containers (i.e. BLEVE). NFPA 58 Sections 6.23.5 and 6.24 provide additional information on types of fire protection that can be used to increase the level of safety for an installation and include: • Passive protection such as tank insulation, mounding, or burial • Active protection such as water sprays, monitor nozzles, etc. • Redundant Fail-Safe Product Control Measures coupled with Low Emission Transfer equipment intended to significantly reduce the opportunity for product release. At least for the three tanks, the proposed design provides most of the provisions for Redundant Fail-Safe Product Control already. Addressing the hazards from the cylinder filling dock and outside storage are not as straight forward given they are not directly covered in NFPA 58. The provisions for H-2 occupancies are a good start for the cylinder filling dock, while there is little code background for how to store and protect large quantities of LP-gas cylinders stored outside. Clearly additional information needs to be provided to you to address these areas so that you can conduct an adequate plan review. In order to assure that each item on the plan review has been complied with, it is recommended that Ferrellgas be required to respond to each item in writing. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me at the number indicated below. Sincerely, Rich Pehrson Futrell Fire Consult and Design 612.590.5044 Mounds View – Ferrellgas Plan Review Page 10 of 10 October 1, 2007 Disclaimer This review letter has been prepared by FFCDI based on the information available to us in the submittal as provided by the client and is limited to a review of the tank installation drawings and incident prevention review for this specific project. FFCDI has not inspected the current or future building, construction or installation, classified occupancies, nor determined if the client or building is in compliance with any laws, rules, codes or standards. FFCDI has also not evaluated or inspected the installation as proposed nor determined its fitness for use. The scope of this review is limited to that in the contract between the client and FFCDI and is not to be used for other designs, locations, installations or situations outside those for which it was intended. FFCDI is not responsible for implementation, interpretation or confirmation of recommendations or requirements, including those indicated in this report, unless provided for in additional contracts outside the scope of the current work. Should the client not retain the services of FFCDI to review the implementation or any other use of this report through site observation, inspection, or audits, then the client and any end users agree to assume full liability and responsibility for the verification, implementation, interpretation, or any other use of this review and its findings for any purpose. Additionally, the recommendations in this review are based on responsible parties, other than FFCDI, such as the contractor or building owner/operator maintaining the installation and fire protection systems, providing the required maintenance, testing, inspection, housekeeping and occupancy and storage in accordance with the provisions submitted for review by the contractor and local, state and national laws, and nationally recognized standards, including those outlined in this review or provided in the supplied documents. Copyright FFCDI 2007. October 4, 2006 To: Jim Ericson Community Development Director City of Mounds View From: Eric Chalmers Fedtech 4763 Mustang Circle Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Proposed Relocation of Ferrellgas This letter is intended to present concerns that I have regarding the proposal to add a rail spur and to locate Ferrellgas on the Tyson Company property just to the west of the Fedtech property. This location borders our employee parking area. I am a co-owner of the Fedtech property. There are over one hundred people working in the building in a number of businesses that include precision machine shop, machine assembly and electrical equipment service. The areas of concern that I have regarding relocating Ferrellgas and adding the rail spur are as follows: 1. Propane fumes from the facility may adversely affect employee health. We have several employees that have chemical sensitivity issues. We cannot afford to lose these employees and if there are health issues will we be compensated. 2. Hiring and retaining employees will become more difficult if there are propane related smells that are pervasive and noxious. 3. Having an undesirable use adjacent to our property will have a negative impact on its value. 4. The presence of chemicals at the facility may pose an environmental risk to the adjacent wetland area and a safety risk to our building and employees. 5. Will the movement of rail cars or impact between rail cars introduce vibration into the ground? Fedtech performs precision waterjet cutting with large computer controlled machines that rely on anchoring to the concrete floor for stability. Any vibration from the rail cars will adversely affect the accuracy of the parts that are cut. I am against this proposal. The propane facility should be relocated to an area that is distant from existing businesses and residences. Regarding the rail spur, what guarantees are there that there will be no vibration introduced into the Fedtech building from car movement or abrupt stopping of cars. Sincerely, Eric Chalmers October 4, 2006 To: Jim Ericson Community Development Director City of Mounds View From: Eric Chalmers Fedtech 4763 Mustang Circle Mounds View, MN 55112 Re: Proposed Relocation of Ferrellgas This letter is intended to present concerns that I have regarding the proposal to add a rail spur and to locate Ferrellgas on the Tyson Company property just to the west of the Fedtech property. This location borders our employee parking area. I am a co-owner of the Fedtech property. There are over one hundred people working in the building in a number of businesses that include precision machine shop, machine assembly and electrical equipment service. The areas of concern that I have regarding relocating Ferrellgas and adding the rail spur are as follows: 1. Propane fumes from the facility may adversely affect employee health. We have several employees that have chemical sensitivity issues. We cannot afford to lose these employees and if there are health issues will we be compensated. 2. Hiring and retaining employees will become more difficult if there are propane related smells that are pervasive and noxious. 3. Having an undesirable use adjacent to our property will have a negative impact on its value. 4. The presence of chemicals at the facility may pose an environmental risk to the adjacent wetland area and a safety risk to our building and employees. 5. Will the movement of rail cars or impact between rail cars introduce vibration into the ground? Fedtech performs precision waterjet cutting with large computer controlled machines that rely on anchoring to the concrete floor for stability. Any vibration from the rail cars will adversely affect the accuracy of the parts that are cut. I am against this proposal. The propane facility should be relocated to an area that is distant from existing businesses and residences. Regarding the rail spur, what guarantees are there that there will be no vibration introduced into the Fedtech building from car movement or abrupt stopping of cars. Sincerely, Eric Chalmers MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 875-07 CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW COUNTY OF RAMSEY STATE OF MINNESOTA RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR STORAGE OF FLAMMABLE LIQUIDS AT 4815 MUSTANG CIRCLE; PLANNING CASE NO. CU2006-009 WHEREAS, 7T’s Management, LLC. has applied for a conditional use permit to allow for storage of flammable liquids; and, WHEREAS, the subject property, located at 4815 Mustang Circle, is zoned I-1, Industrial, and is legally described as follows: Mounds View Industrial Park No. 3, Subject to Easements; Lot 7, Block 1 WHEREAS, the Mounds View Zoning Code allows storage of flammable liquids as a conditional use in Industrial districts; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the following documents regarding this proposal: 1. Staff Report 2. Application 3. Zoning Map 4. Aerial View 5. Comp Plan Future Land Use Map 6. Proposed Site Plan 7. Futrell Fire Design review of Ferrellgas Risk Management Plan WHEREAS, the City of Mounds View has contracted with Futrell Fire Design & Consult, Inc. to review the risk management plan submitted by the applicant. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission makes the following findings of fact related to the conditional use permit request: 1. The proposed location of the flammable liquids is within 700 feet of the Townsedge Terrace Manufactured Home Park. 2. Fire Department response time for water application exceeds the time outlined for development of extremely hazardous conditions as outlined under NFPA 58. Resolution 875-07 Page 2 3. Limited Fire Department access: Mustang Drive is the only road access into this industrial park, and the Fire Department would be greatly constrained in their ability to access all sides of this site due to the geography of the neighboring park land and large industrial buildings that surround this property. 4. The Futrell report indicates that the adjacent metal cutting and fabrication businesses would be additional external hazards to the propane facility. 5. The request would not be consistent with the Mounds View Comprehensive Plan in that the property at 4815 Mustang Circle is designated as Light Industrial on the Future Land Use Map. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends denial of the conditional use permit for the retail propane gas facility: BE IT FINALLY RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning Commission directs staff to forward this resolution to the City Council prior to approval of the minutes. Adopted this 7th day of November, 2007. _____________________________________ Gary Stevenson, Chairperson ATTEST: ____________________________________ James Ericson, Community Development Director (SEAL) Item No: 6A Meeting Date: November 7, 2007 Type of Business: Commission Business City of Mounds View Staff Report To: Mounds View Planning Commission From: Heidi Heller, Planning Associate Item Title/Subject: Planning Commission Term Expiration The term of one commission member—Sherry Gunn-- expires at the end of the year. Sherry was appointed to fill the one year remaining on Al Hull’s seat due to him being elected to the City Council. The next term length for this seat will be the full three years. The City will advertise the vacancy, with applications due by December 10, 2007. The Planning Commission will review any applications at the December 19th meeting, and the City Council will make the official appointment on January 14th. Sincerely, _________________________ Heidi Heller Planning Associate