HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packets - 1987/03/16CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA SESSION
MARCH 16, 1987
7:00 P.M.
1. 4th Quarter 1986 and Annual Summary Report of Parks,
Recreation and Forestry Director Saarion
2. Discussion of Funding for Parks Capital Improvements and
Storm Water and Wetland Management Plan
3. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Portable
Radios
4. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Contribution
to Nor'% Suburban Cable Commission
5.. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Development
Review Guidelines
6. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Mid America
Auto Incorporated
7. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding
Approval of Contracting with Midwest Asphalt as Low
Bidder for the Development of Groveland Park Tennis
Courts and Play Court
8. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding the Purchase
of City Hall Play Structure
9. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding 1987 LMC
Annual Conference
10. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding 1987 Long
Term Financial Plan
11. Consideration of Resolution No. 2180 Approving Condi-
tional Use Permit for Pinewood Elementary School,
Mounds View Planning Case No. 202-87
12. Consideration of Ordinance No. 418 Amending the
Municipal Code of Mounds View By Amending Chapter 41
Entitled, "Specific Rezonings"
13. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Response to
DOT Advance Notice of Rulemaking
14. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Well #1 Pump
and Meter/Project 86-1
15. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Well d3
Manganese Removal/Project 86-7
(To be handed out on Monday)
AGENDA
PAGE TWO
MARCH 16, 1987
16. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding Street
Sweeping Bids/Project 87-1 Quotes
17. Consideration of Staff Memorandum Regarding
Well ►6 Chlorination System Replacement Quotes
18. Consideration of Temporary Part Time Employment
of Dan Otterson
1
PROCEEDINGS OF TILE CITY COUN ILP CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW RO
�_. RAMSEY COUNTY, MINNESOTA VID
Regular Meeting
March 9, 1987
Mounds View City Hall
2401 Hwy. 10, Mounds View, MN 55112
The Mounds View City Council was called to order 1. Call to
by Mayor Links at 7;00 PM on Monday, March 9, 19S7. Order
The Pledge of Allegiance was said. 2. Pledge of
Allegiance
MEMBERS PRESENT Councilmembers Blanchard, Wuori, 3. Roll Call
Hankner, Quick and Mayor Links.
ALSO PRESENT: Attorney Mark Barney and Clerk/
Administrator Pauley.
Motion/Second: Blanchard/Wuori to approve the 4. Approval of
February 23, 1987 minutes as presented. Minutes:
Feb. 23, 1987
5 ayes 0 nays
Motion Carried
Sergeant Johnson of the Police Department introduced 5. Oaths of Office
the three new reserve officers, Linda Jacobson, for New Reserve
Joel Chilstrom and Jeffry Tholkes. Officers
Clerk/Administrator Pauley administered the oaths
of office to the new reserve officers, and the
Council congratulated them and welcomed them.
There were no residents requests or comments from 6. Residents
the floor. Requests and
Comments from
the Floor
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to approve the consent 7. Approval of
agenda, as presented, and waive the reading of the Consent Agenda
resolutions.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley read the list of items on
the consent agenda.
Mounds(/View City
Regular Meeting
----------------
Motion/Second: Hankner/Wuori to approve Resolu
No. 2173, encouraging greater state and federal
efforts to control the spread of AIDS.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley read Resolution No. 2173.
Councilmember Hankner reported the Department of
Education, in cooperation with the State Department
of Health and the Department of Human Services, has
developed guidelines for school districts to use to
educate students on this virus.
March 9, 1987'
Page Two
-------------
8. Considerat!^ of
Rslt. No. 2...3
Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the request of 9. Consideration
Kraus Anderson Development Corporation for a reduction of Staff Memo
in the performance bond for Development Agreement and Rslt.
No. 82-52, Silver Lake Woods Development, to No. 2176
$37,000.00.
Motion/Seconde. Quick/Hankner to approve Resolution
No. 2176, reducing the performance bond for Development
Agreement No. 82-52, Silver Lake Woods Development,
and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the intent of
proposed resolution No. 2175.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Blanchard to approve.
Resolution No. 2175, amending Resolution No. 1988
establishing penalties for administrative offenses,
and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Hankner asked if there could have
been a better way to establish the fines, when the
original ordinance was adopted.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied that the fines
had not been set until after the ordinance was
passed because of it's controversial nature, as
Staff wanted to ensure it was passed before
establishing the fines.
Motion Carr.l
1;. Consideration
of Rslt. No.
2175
Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the request 11. Consideration
of Marvin H. Anderson Construction Company for of Rslt. No.
the vacation of easements originally granted to 2174
the City on Lots 1 through 8, Block 4, Silver
Lake Woods.
Mounds View City'Council March 9, 1987
Regular Meeting �" 3 ��.� k- Page Three
------------------------- -ILI-D - ---------
There was discussion among the Counciof to
difficulty in getting communications from the
County Recording Office, for changes such as
this with the vacation of easements.
Motion/Second: Wuori/Quick to approve Resolution
No. 2174, vacating easements on Lots 1 through 8,
Block 4, Silver Lake Woods, and waive, the
reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed the request
for a storm sewer easement vacation for the Red
Oak Park plat.
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to approve Reso-
lution No. 2179, vacating storm sewer easements
in Red Oak Park Plat, and waive the reading.
5 ayes 0 nays
Police Chief Ramacher gave a comparison of
crime statistics for 1986 versus 1985 in both
Class I and Class II crimes. He reported the
most serious problem in Mounds View is theft,
with 483 cases reported in 1986, and he gave a
breakdown of the categories of theft involved.
He reported that 34% of crimes committed in the
City in 1986 were solved, which is the same
percentage that was solved in 1985.
Police Chief Ramacher reported they are on-line
with the new computer system and are excited
about it. He also reported the reserve program
is going well, and they now have seven reservists,
who are very helpful in supplementing the police
department in certain areas.
Finance Director Brager presented the Council
with completed financial statements for 1986
and reviewed some of the highlights briefly. He
reported the general fund budget ran over due to
the Williams Pipeline situation. Finance Director
Brager also reviewed some of the planned activities
of the finance department for the coming quarter.
Park, Recreation and Forestry Director Saarion
presented copies of hbr 4th quarter report to the
L Council and reviewed it with them. She discussed
with the Council the problems they have been
experiencing with getting space reserved at Edgewood
Community Center, and then being bumped out by the
school district, who has a higher priority over the
Motion Carried
12. Consideration
of Rslt. 110.
2179
Motion Carried
13. 4th Quarter and
Annual Summary
Department Head
Reports
Mounds View City Council March 9, 1987
Regular Meeting i ! ri. �7,�rcn n9 11—M Page Four
City. She also discussed potential pioblems in v
scheduling Irondale High School for the community
theater production this coming summer.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked that these items 14. Report of Acting
be covered under his report later on the agenda. Public Works/
Community Dvlpt.
Director
Attorney Karney had no report. 15. Report of
Attorney
Councilmember Blanchard had no report. 16. Reports of
Councilmembers:
Councilmember
Blanchard
Councilmember Wuori reported the Irondale spring Councilmember
play will be "Would -Be Gentlemen", and performances Wuori
are scheduled for March 12, 13 and 19 at Irondale,
and she urged community support.
Councilmember Wuori reported the Planning Commission
has requested the Council authorize a traffic study
to be done for the intersection of Highway 10 and l .
Silver Lake Road, and they specifically have
requested that the firm of Barton-Ashmann be
retained to do the work.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley explained that the Planning
Commission has received a request from Amoco to build
a self service gas station and car wash on the south-
west corner of Silver Lake Road and Highway 10. He
added he contacted Barton-Ashmann and explained the
criteria the Planning Commission had set out, and they
gave him a price of between $3,000 and $5,000. He
then called TKDA and gave them the same information
and received a price not to exceed $600, and then he
called Short -Elliott -Hendrickson and was given their
price not to exceed $500. He added he has worked
with both TKDA and SEH, and the City has a very good
report with both firms and he would recommend selecting
one of them over Barton-Ashmann due to the price
difference.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated a traffic study was
done when Kinder Care was proposed, but that was a
different location of the intersection, and the
Planning Commission now has specific concerns of how
traffic will flow onto Highway 10 and Silver Lake Road �.
that they would like addressed specifically to this
proposed development. Ile added that while he has not
talked with the developer, the costs of the study would
- Mounds View City Council March 9, 1987
Regular Meeting F Page Five
-------------------------- i p
V ----------------
most likely be charged back to the development.
Councilmember Hankner asked that the health issue
be looked at for that entire corner, as she is
especially concerned with the day care center
being across the highway.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley stated he would add
that to the list of items to be addressed, and
that would raise the cost somewhat.
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to authorize Staff
to enter into an agreement with Short -Elliott -
Hendrickson, and include not only the traffic
study but other health -related issues as well.
5 ayes 0 nays
Councilmember Hankner stated she was very glad
to see in the administrative newsletter that work
on County Road I should be progressing soon.
Councilmember Quick had no report.
Mayor Linke reminded everyone the City Appreciation
Dinner is scheduled for Saturday, April 11 at the
Bel Rae Ballroom, with the Cadillacs to be the band.
He stated tickets could be purchased at City Hall
or from any Councilmember.
Mayor Linke reported he has had many calls on the
Highway 10 extension, and that while the bid opening
has been delayed from July until December, work is
still planned to begin in January 1988.
Councilmember Hankner stated she had also confirmed
that information with Senator Novak, and he also
told her the runway at the Anoka County Airport is
also scheduled to be moved this summer.
Mayor Linke reported Clean -Up Day is scheduled for
May 2, and will be written up in the newsletter.
lie added it will be for Mounds View residents only
and they will need some type of identification to
use the facility to dump their garbage.
Motion Carried
Councilmember
Hankner
Councilmember
Quick
Mayor Linke
Clerk/Administrator Pauley asked that an informational 17. Report of
meeting be set to inform the residents of the work Administrator
to be done on County Road I.
Mounds View City Council
Regular Meeting
------------------------
O iw. ie
Motion/Second: Hankner/Quick to schedu a• anM
informat nal meeting for 7:05 PM on Monday,
April 13, 1987 regarding County Road I improvements.
5 ayes 0 nays
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported they have
received advance notice of the rule making from
the Department of Transportation relative to the
pipeline, and he has received a good deal of
response from many people. He stated that any
responses to the document must be made in
triplicate by March 27, and he stated the City
would be willing to make the copies for the
residents.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported Staff has been
working with the property owners of the Stanley
Fisher addition, and Attorney Karney has reviewed
the proposed development agreement and he asked
for approval of the development agreement.
March 9, 1987'
Page Six
Motion Carried
Motion/Second: Quick/Blanchard to authorize Mayor & Clerk -Administrator
to enter into Development Agreement 186-77 for the
Stanley Fisher Addition.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carr C
I
Mayor Linke asked that Staff make sure Marcella
Rybak initials the #10 which was added to Exhibit
2A.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reviewed his memo of
March 6, 1987 to the City Council regardingltiring a
planning intern from Mankato State University to
assist in the planning area for six months. He
stated there are a number of projects pending in
the City, and an intern would be very helpful to
Staff.
Councilmember Hankner stated she would like to see
the other members of the Community Development staff
participate in the interview process, as the Council
has made a commitment to Staff along that line.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley replied the two staff
members involved do not have any planning background
or training, and he was not aware the Council had made
a promise to Staff that they could be involved in the
hiring process.
It was the concensus of the Council that they did wan':
Staff to participate in the interview process.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley pointed out there have been
other Staff members involved in the hiring of previous
4
11
Mounds View City Counc =,h March 9, 1987
Regular Meeting r p�ayYg$� jai` --- Page -Seven
---------------------- v YC.O If ' - --------
employees, where appropriate.
Motion/Second: Linke/liankner to authorize the
Clerk Administrator to interview and hire a
person for the part-time planner position, for
a period of six months, at a salary of $1,300
per month, with the money to come from the
Community Development Department budget.
5 ayes 0 nays Motion Carried
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported that since the
last agenda session where the Council had expressed
concern over the condition of property at 8101
Silver Lake Road, the owners have been contacted.
and the structure will be demolished within the
next three weeks, in the proper manner.
Clerk/Administrator Pauley reported he had just
received notide today that the annual banquet for
the Ramsey County League of Local Governments would
be held on March 18, and he needs to have the
reservations in by March 13.
Mayor Linke adjourned the meeting at 8:45 PM. 18. Adjournment
Respectfully submitted,
Donald F. Pauley
Clerk/Administrator
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY CUUNC L
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR 1
DATE: MARCH 10, 1987
SUBJECT: PORTABLE RADIOS
As you may recall at your January 6, 1987 Agenda Session, I
discussed with you the purchase of eight portable radios
with accessories and you indicated approval of my actions at
that time. Unfortunately, the Council did not take formal
action to approve this purchase at your next regular meeting
and I am requesting that you do so at this time by means of
the Consent Agenda. Should you have any questions regarding
this matter, please do not hesitate to let me know.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends authorization
equipment from Communications
account number 100-200-4703.
DFP/mjs
4,
to purchase $5,144 of radio
Center to be charged to
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIf.
is FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRATO
DATE: MARCH 2, 1987
SUBJECT: CONTRIBUTION TO NORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
In a recent packet, you received an informational, item
regarding franchise fees received by the City of Mounds View
for revenues received by the City's franchised cable
operator during 1986. The City has also received, copy
attached, correspondence from the North Suburban Cable
Commission requesting $6,467.64 from this franchise amount
to finance the Commission's operations during 1987. This
would then leave the City with a total amount for cable TV
related expenditures of $15,031.30.
Pursuant to the Joint Powers Agreement the City of Mounds
View has entered into regarding the North Suburban Cable
Commission, Staff recommends Council authorization to remit
$6,467.64 to the North Suburban Cable Commission.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
1
gORTH SUBURBAN CABLE COMMISSION
t77WESTIARPEN7FURAVENUE FALCON HEIG1Ti'S.MINNESOTA55113 • (612)646-8172
q.
February 16, 1987
TO: City Managers/Clerk Administrators, Mayors and Council
FROM: Bootsie Anderson 1.6e+'t�
Cable Administrator
Enclosed please find the "left out" city contribution sheet. Perfection is hard
to maintain.
There is a recent development that you should be aware of regarding your government
channels.
Up to the end of 1986 the "Government Channel" was found on Channel 10 in all
cities. Then, the cable company came along and changed all the channels, placing
the "Government Channel" on Channel 3B. Early in March, I will call each of you
as to the exact day, the Government Channel will be moved one last time. The new
channel location will be Channel 16.
In the March 1 issues of the Lillie Newspapers and Minnesota Suburban Newspapers
there will be a lull page ad showing the new channel allocations.
Another change will be the location of the Public Access Channel. IC is now on
Channel 39 having Dnce been on Channel 3. The new home for Public Access is Channel
33. It seems as though 33 is the Public Access Channel for the Rogers and
Continental Systems also. The goal is to establish some sort of metro uniformity.
Thank you for not rubbing in the "left out" sheet. Call if you have questions.
BA: kjz
Enclosure
Ardm III IN • Falmn l leia11h • [AtIdRdale • I11Ile Canada • Mnundn View • New Bdghlon • Nmlh Oab • Roseville • St. Anthony • Slunevlew
ACTUAL
CITY VOTES BUDGET AMOUNT RECEIVED
Arden Hills
2
4,311.76
9,678.62
Falcon Heights
2
4,311.76
278.51
Lauderdale
1
2,155.88
2,609.13
Little Canada
2
4,311.76
12,983.80
Mounds View
3
6,467.64
21,498.94
New Brighton
5
10,779.40
32,710.36
North Oaks
1
2,155.88
4,234.43
Roseville
8
s 17,247.04
51,471.86
St..Anthony
2
4,311.76
10,776.48
Shoreview
5
10,779.40
31,405.86
TOTAL BUDGET $ 66,832.25
MOUNT PER VOTE $ 2,155.87
AMOUNT AFTER
CONTRIBUTION
5,366.86
(4,033.25)
453.25
8,672.04
15,031.30
21,930.96
2,167.55
34,224.86
6,464.72
20,626.46
`- 5
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUN(I � D P ANNING COMMISSION
FROM: CLERK—ADMINISTRA'
DATE: MARCH 4, 1987
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT REVIEW GUIDELINES
An issue that has become crystal clear to City Staff during the
past few weeks in light of recent changes within the'City's
organization, as well as the signficant number of development
proposals being dicussed and/or presented to the City Council
for action, is the need for some organized means for Staff review
of development proposals prier to presentation of these proposals
to the Planning Commission and/or City Council. It is felt that
such a review by all appropriate Staff members at the earliest
possible date will have a significant positive effect upon
Staff's ability to identify any possible problems with a proposal
and address those items with the Developer at the earliest
possible date.
With that in mind, Staff has prepared the attached Development
Review Guidelines which we propose to implement at the earliest
possible date In order to improve the current process for
reviewing developments as well as ensuring that all interested
parties have had the opportunity to comment on a development
proposal prior to it progressing to far along the approval
process.
Should there not be any objections to implementation of the
program, Staff intends on formally implementing these guidlines
on April 1, 1987. Your comments would be greatly appreciated.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
3
DEVELOPMEN'r REVIEW GUIDELINES
In an effort to ensure that all parties having an interest in
developments in the City of Mounds View are involved in the
review of development proposals prior to their presentation to
the Planning Commission and City Council and to provide for a
smooth development review process in the City, the following
procedures shall be followed for Staff review of all developments
requiring development agreements with the City o. Mounds View.
Immediately upon receipt of a development proposal which would
include 8 copies of all plans, copies of the proposal including
all appropriate supplementary information shall be provided to
the following individuals: Clerk -Administrator, ';re Chief,
Police Chief, Public Works Foreman, Building Inraoector/
Engineering Technician, Consulting Engineer. Wi Mn ten working
days of the distribution of these documents, all parties shall
meet in joint session with the developer to discuss any concerns
they might have regarding the development proposal including
requests for modifications to the plans. Individuals
may be excused from attending this meeting when they sign a
statement, copy attached, indicating that they Lad the proposal
to be acceptable and recommend its approval and submit it to the
Clerk -Administrator.
other individuals serving as staff members of tl.� City of Mounds
View or consultants may be requested to assist in the development
review process beyond those listed above when it is determined
that additional expertise is necessary to ensure that an adequate
development review has occurred.
once the development review meeting has been conducted and modi-
fications have been made pursuant to the reques± of Staff, the
modified development proposal with a memorandum outlining the
changes made to the original proposal will be s•bmitted to the
Planning Commission for development review pursa int to the
provisions of the appropriate sections of the wniicipal Code.
RE: PLANNING CASE NO.
TO: CLERIC^ ADM INISTRATOP.
FROM:
DATE:
I have reviewed the documents pertaining to the referenced
development proposal. The proposal is found to be
acceptable as it relates to my area of review and I would
recommend its approval.
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COON
C
FROM: CLERK -ADMINISTRATOR
DATE: MARCH 4, 1987
SUBJECT: MID AMERICA AUTO INCORPORATED
On November 25, 1986 Staff received a complaint from a resident
whose property is adjacent to Mid America Auto at 2975 Highway
10. The complaint outlined the following concerns:
1. The operator is conducting body work and painting
of autos on the site and the fumes from such work
are becoming bothersome to the neighbors.
2. Junk or abandoned vehicles are being stored behind
the building next to residential property.
3. An air compressor is stored in a van behind the
building and is of a bothersome nature due to the
noise it emits.
In response to this complaint I requested that the Police
Department and Public works/Community Development Department
undertaken Inspections of this property to respond to these
complaints and determine what violations of City Code, if any,
existed. Several inspections were conducted of the site by the
Police Department, Building Inspectors, and Fire Inspectors to
determine exactly what violations exist and what corrective
measures must be taken.
Attached to this memorandum you will find copies of the reports
submitted by these inspectors in response to the request for an
investigation.
Essentially, these inspection reports, besides noting various
building code and fire code violations which can be handled
through the normal administrative procedures, identified the
following violations requiring the attention of, and direction
from, the City Council.
1. The area to be paved for purposes of displaying
cars for sale, which was to be completed by
July 1, 1978, has not been paved at this time.
2. The Conditional Use Permit also required that
10 parking spaces be marked for customer parking
and this work has not been accomplished.
3. Junk vehicles, trailers, and semi trailers,
which contain used vehicle parts, are located in
the fenced area of the rear yard. The Conditional
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAGE TWO
MARCH 4, 1987
Use Permit strictly prohibits the storage of junk -
vehicles, the City's Zoning Code prohibits the
storage of junk vehicles which can be defined as
auto reduction yards or junk yards in B-3 Zoning
Districts and semi trailer parking is not permitted
per the Zoning Code. Also, the Conditional Use
Permit states that outside storage of parts is
prohibited.
An air compressor currently in use for operations
conducted on this site is stored in a trailer in
the fenced in area. This use appears to be prohibited
based on the City's Zoning Code which prohibits
accessory buildings that are not permanent in nature.
obviously, the trailers are not permanent in nature.
5. Various pieces of equipment including an engine block
and tackle hoist and other items were seen during the
inspections which leads Staff to believe that work has
been on -going on this site in violation of the
Conditional Use Permit which specifically limited work
on vehicles to minor auto repair.
Upon reviewing the inspection reports and discussing this matter
with the inspection staff, staff would recommend Council
authorization to undertake the following action against Mid -
America Auto with the requirement that corrective action be taken
within 60 days of receipt of the notice or the renewal of their
Used Auto Sales License, which has not been acted upon for 1987,
would be denied. The specific action proposed is as follows:
1. order the paving of the site pursuant to the
Conditional Use Permit issued in 1978.
2. Order the striping of the parking lot for 10
customer parking spaces pursuant to the Conditional
Use Permit.
3. Order the removal of all junk vehicles, trailers, and
semi trailers from the fenced in rear yard and order
the discontinuation of the storage of used auto parts
on site until such time as accessory buildings are
constructed pursuant to the City's Zoning Code and
Building Codes.
4. Order the installation of the air compressor in the
interior of the building or in a structure attached to
the building for which a Building Permit is issued
which in constructed in such a nature as to mufflo the
noise from this equipment in the residential areas
adjoining this property.
MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PAGE THREE
MARCH 4, 1987
5. Order the discontinuation of all auto repair
activities that are not clearly defined as minor auto
repair on the site and remove all equipment clearly
not needed for purposes of undertaking minor auto
repair including, but not limited to, the engine block
and tackle hoist.
6. Undertake all modifications required to bring the
facility into compliance with City Building and Fire
Codes.
Staff would request Council approval of this action in order that
enforcement measures may be undertaken at the earliest possible
date to expedite the discontinuation of those activities which
are not permitted by City Code or by the Conditional Use Permit
which originally allowed the operation of this business in the
City of Mounds view.
DFP/mjs
' Attachments:
MEMO TO: Director of Public Works/Community Development Thatcher
FROM: Public Works Foreman/Building Inspector RoseI�t
DATE: January 27, 1987
SUBJECT: MID-AMF,RICAN AUTO
2975 HIGHWAY 10
The following are the findings of my building/fire inspection of
the above subject- address.
The business is a used car sales and minor repair shop. That
would translate to a B-3 conditional use permit auto repair
minor zoning. The Building Code addresses such use in either a
B-2 or 11-4 occupancy. It is my interpretation that the use fits
more properly into the 11-4 classification due to the practices of
welding, cutting, torching and painting.
Attached please find copies of Section 905 of the Uniform
Building Code (UDC) and Section 45.207 of the Uniform Fire Code
(UFC). These sections require the following corrections:
1. Office Area - Relocate furnace from garage area used for
office and restroom heat and provide for the ventilation
requirement found in the UBC areas marked "A".
2. Garage Area - Install a automobile exhaust system as
required in the UBC area marked "B".
3. Restroom - Install or repair a restroom to meet the
requirements of the UBC area marked "C". This facility
can be a unisex facility.
4. Garage Area - Install a mechanical ventilation system to
provide a minimum of six complete air changes per hour
taken at a point near the floor per UBC requirements
marked "0" and UFC requirements marked "A".
Also meet all other requirements found in UFC, Section
45.207.
5. The Fire Department, per my discussion with them, may also
require sprinkling of the repair area. Their direction
will be received on February 2, 1987.
Other items required by the Building Code:
1. Removal of a1L roof bar joist storage and excess equipment
(i.e., extra unused space heater, engine block and tackle
hoist• and any other excess materials unless the owner
supplies a proof of load bearing capacity from a qualified
structural engineer.
Public Works/Community Development Director Thatcher
Page 2
January 27, 1987
2. There exists covered truck boxes used for parts storage
and equipment which have Electrical Code violations.
Electrical repairs per City and Electrical Inspector
requirements. (The City's direction is this area needs to
be clarified.)
During my review of the pertinent materials of this item as well
as the on -site inspection, I offer the following comments:
1. Zoning Code Section 40.01, Subd. H, gives the City a basis
to take action in questionable areas.
2. Zoning Code Section 40.02, Subd. B M , defines auto
reduction yard. An auto reduction yard is not allowed in
a B-3 zoned district.
3. Zoning Code Section 40.02, Subd. 1, defines accessory
building or use.
4. Zoning Code Section 40.18, Subd. D M , has requirements
for open and outdoor storage and, specifically, Paragraph
F has provisions requiring findings.
I believe that these sections give the City some right of review
and direction in which to pursue removal of the outdoor storage.
This area is important as to the correction notices regarding
electrical violations. Inotherwords, if the City chooses to use
the existing Code or modify the Code to eventually disallow the
outdoor storage as it is, we should not require him to make
electrical improvements.
Should you have any questions or need assistance in this matter,
please let nie know.
SAR/bac
cc: Clerk -Administrator Pauley
6
AS,206-45.207 UNIFORM FIRE CODE
. s
If) Exbwa dons shall be constructed of steel having a thickness not less Ilion
indicated in the fable below:
'
MMUR THICKNESS
mANEIEAaFadCr SHEET ME
A• its iev, No. 24
Oar A' to I A', Indmim No. 22
Oser IA' It, 30'• Inclushc No. 20
Ih'ar31r Nu. IA
)'he discharge point for exhaum'liters in a point spray IKutlo shall be not less
v
Than 6 feel from adjoining combustible cunslmclion net less Than 25 [at from
adjoining cxlciior wall openings,
EXCEPTION: The dinharge point fro exhaust duns In water wads gray MKNIn
is wN rrqulmd.
(g) Cxhaw ducts FhAl have a clearance from unprotcctad combustible con-
simnion or material of ma Ins Ilion 19 inches. If combustible construction Is
provided with the following ptoue(hin applied III all surfacca wllhill I inches,
clearances Play be reduced to [lie dlstorees Indicated.
I. No. 28 gage(.1114-inch) sheaf metal on K-inch
atbcshn millbnanl.................................... 12 inches
2. No. 29 gage sheet mcfalon Which asbestos miltboatdspoecd out l inch on
•�
nonconlhuslihde spa•,cps................................. 9 inches
7. NO. 22 gage (.1127-inch) Miect metal on I -inch mckwool bans minrnmed
with wire mrsb rr the egt6rulcm .......................... 3 inches
'
A)Air "finusled from spraying operations shall and be mcirrulated.
Of •Ihe mechanical vem111160il .ryslem shall hove air intake duns extended to
•J
'
pick up Baounable vapor within 6 inches of the floor.
Limited Spraying Areas '
Sec. 45.207. Limited spraying areas commonly known as "spitning" or
I "touch-up • areas are less haxardous Ilion quawily production spray -finishing
operations and may in approved by the chief, provided they conform to the
following requirements
..i
1. Such Form are buill Sol maintained in accordance with the Building Code
requirements for a Group if, Division 4 Gcenpancy.
2. The sire orjob to he done in such areas does mot exceed 9squ3m feet and is
not of a continuous nature.
Note: U is file intent of Item 2 in allow only small jobs which in their
_ entirely do its I exceed 9 square fret.
Posiuvr, mcr xnm =TMr(stmiil c pmvr mg: a minimum of six �.'
complete air change per hour. Such system shell meet Ihe requiminenls of
this code for hatnlline Bamnrable vapors
A11 electrical wiring within 10 feet of the floor shall comply with Class 1,
Division 2locations in accordance with da electrical Code.
108
t985 EDITION
BObB05
2. Inside liquid roams. R anus that do not have an exterior wall may he used
fnr the storage Or the storage and use, dispensing or mixing of Class I, 11 or III•A
liquids, pmvidcdtheydo not exceed haHquare feel in Armand are separated from
other areas by occupancy separations having a Rm•resislive rating not Icss than v
one hour furrnnms up In ISO aluare feet in area and ma less than Iwo boors where
the room is Ionic than 151) square feel in Area. Separations rmm other Occupancies
shall he nol less titan mprlml by Thblc No. 5.0.
3. Idquld storage warehmnex. The design and consm¢lian of liquid storage
warchrnnas in which flammable or combustible lignids ate scored shall he In
Accordance with the requirements for a Group 11. Division 2 Occupancy and this
section. liquid storage warehouses shall he used for file MOrxge or flammable or
rombnsfihle liquids only and shall tw separated from all othernxe; by a four-hour
area separation wall.
All liquidslnrage wnrchnnses shall he provided with Adequate drainage. Dmin-
age systems shall he sired and deligned to carry off any anticipated spill, plus the
miuinmm calculated fire flow • of the sprinkler system In a safe localpo, If
connected to a paddle drain fir sewer systeo, a clatifrer slmll be installed. A.
_. floras and equipment in liquid storage warehouses shall comply will, ,be
Applicable provisions of Subseclon (c) I, Rcros A and D, alawe.
Location on Propeltir
Sec, 903. For fin" ecistivc pmlretinn of exterior walls and openings, as
determined by Incalinn on property. see Section 51k And Part IV.
.. RuildingseonniningaGroup 11,DivhsitmI(kcupanciesshall be ins•Alcd(Afcct .
frnm all property lines including property lines adjmnt in public ways.
Grnup 11, Division 2 ()Ceupancles eonlainiug haranlnns materials in caress of
the Amounts listed in Table NO. 9-A shall not exceed 15ta) square fee, in area
unless there is more than 30 feet from all property lines including property lines
adjacent to public ways.
When o building is of mixed Occupancy and contains a Group If. Divkh m 2
(kcupamy, fie Group 11, Division 2 (kcupAncy shall he separated front themher
nxupancy ns lego4cd in 'Table No. 5.11. Stich Grnup 11. Division 2 Occupancies
shall he fin fire Oster perimeter of the building And all walls of the Group 11,
Division 2 rkcnpanry shall be located a minimum of 30 feel from properly line. %'-
"CWHON: Inside liquid moms tlgl empty with the Radiations in section
902(e)2.
Exit Faclllllea
Sec, 904. Slain, nk and smnkrpusf enclosures shall he provided as specs•
Pied in (Tapler 33.ISee also Section 3320.)
Light, Ventilation and Sanitation -
See. 905. In Group I I Occupancy buildings, all enclosed ponit rs eustamarily
Occupied by human W119%, other than exams Anti mens forwhich milli heemsarc
specified elsewhere in this sersinn, shall be prtwitled with natural light by means
Oreurrinrgiaml openings with an area equal to one tenth of the teal floor area of
such portions, and natural ventilation by means of exterior openings with an
SB
903.907 UNIFORM BUILDING CODE
openahle area ntu less diastolic lwentirth nl the total f IMn area of snob portions, or
shall !� ^n,viadesl wirhgslificial licit nN7lbnsechaaicaRy+yvrat t'
f �� p �. s••IendThe nrchaniaily operated ventilation system shall knpahle nfsupply
1?f.FC ing s minimurn of 5 cubic feet per mingle ofoutside air with a fig; eirrulateJ of ,
6 ww� nM leg lhas 15 cubic fcet perminue per occupant in ail occupied portion of the
builJina
In n11 hnilJings or pmlian; tlrmnf whctr Claw I, II or III•A IigaiJs arc usdl,
nMchnnicil exhaust ventilation shall k provided udficlem to prrduce fomr
complete air changer per hour. Such exhaust ventilation shall k taken from a
ryhi at vl ar near Ili flax Irrrl
n sll buildings used for the repair m handling of aulomnhiles nperming under
Ikirnwn pnx•er,nrchanicnlvenlilntinn shall he provided cnpnhlenfexhauginga
solids u'of
I cfna per 41, hot. Addisonnlly,eod: cnginerepairslell shall he
ry cquipprJ with
an exhaust pipe cxmtdnu duct, extruding a Ihe, I'll
of Ihe
building, which, if aver 10 fed In Ira Ili. shell icnll exhaust 3W cubic
in lied Irtritinnte. Lnnnectina of tees and wailing rooms rhal be soonli wn
Ma e'xcenlna an �✓
Every building or portion thereof where persons are employed shall be pas•
videdwilhnt lemi one water last. Stpnate fatilitica shnllkprnviJnl foreach
when the numror employees excenls four and both sexes me employed.
�f' Such Inik
let facilities shall Ir healed either in such building or conveniently in ■
w Mtilit ig adjacent hereto on the same rynpnty.
l �J 7uilcl rooms shall be provided with a fully opewhle exterior window at least
�( squme fret in mca:nra vertical duct stogies thin lWsqua: inches in nma forthe
first loilel facility, with 50 additional square inches for each additional facility; or
a nrchanically operated cximou system cary:blo of providing a complcle change
of air every IS mingles. Such sys(eux shall Ir rnrnccud directly to the nul;IJe,
mad file point ofdixtu +I r i list n le window.
.or
other requirements an water closets, see Sections 510 and 511.
Shari Enclosures
Sec. 906. fix iis shall be enclosed as specified in Clapier!3.
f levmar shills, vent slat'(; and oilier vertical openings shall he enclosed, end
file nrinure shall he as specified in Section 1706.
Doors Wiltshire a psi of an auh,mobile amp enclosure shall be equipped with
automatic closing devices.
Sprinkler and Standpipe Systems '
See. 907. Whrn required by other provision of this emic, aulnmaiic sprinkler
systems and slmalpipes shall he imalled n: specified in C7aplci 39.
so
'-SPRING LAKE PARK - BLAINE - MOUNDS VIEW
FIRE DEPARTMENT
HEADQUARTERS
1010 Highway 10
Spring Lake Perk, Minn. SS432
• Telephone:
Emergency oil
Business 780.9400
Order To Eliminate Fire, Housing, or Zoning Violations
MUNICIPALITY /•� r `: ' VIOLATOR and Location of Violation
Mid American Auto.
XXX Blaine k) „i( Name of vlola!or passes, ormer or operator)
MAC Sir. 2975 Hwy 10 N.R.
Address of vldalion
Mounds View i •")" Same
Spring Lake Perk
�� :c Address at violator If different from above
VIOLATIONS (MUNICIPAL ORDINANCE, STATE LAW, CORRECTIVE ACTION TO BE TAKEN
FIRE, HOUSING, OR ZONING CODE)
UFC Sec. 12.101 (a) Exit obstruction.
1
UFC Sec. 85.104 Abatement of electrical
hazards.
UFC Sec. 2.204(b) Abatement of unsafe
condition.
UFC Sec. 74.107 Storage of cylinders.
UBC Sec. 905 Ventilation.
tinue one of bar on back door du
that someone is in the building.
ire to code the lights in the compressor unit.
Ire to code the romex for the welder outlet at
ront of garage.
emove and discontinue the use of the engine
ofst in garage area, as per condition (f) of
our conditional use permit dated January 26,
978.
UL approved safety can for oily rage.
unused coil pipe in restroom.
all compressed gas cylinders the well.
Provide approved exhaust removal system for the
garage area.
CYou have J0 days from the serAce of this order to comply.
Doled innunry 9, 1987 By ad o
U�
^ MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
PARKS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE, MARCH 10. 1907
RE: CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF CONTRACTING WITH MIDWEST
ASPHALT AS LOW BIDDER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF GROVELAND PARK
TENNIS COURTS AND PLAY COURT.
Please find attached, the bid quotes for development of the Groveland Park
tennis courts and hard court area. The low bidder is Midwest Asphalt at
$28,726.00. The 1907 capital outlay budget approved a $30,000.00 expense for
the project. This low bid is under that amount. Tennis court lighting,
having an alternate bid, is too expensive and therefore will not be
cnnsidered in this project.
RECOMMENDATION: To consider the approval to contract with Midwest Asphalt
for the development of the Groveland Park tennis courts and hard court area
for the bid price of $20,726.00 to he funded out of 100-360-4705.
MS/91
attachment
INPROVIIRIIS
TO
ERO7ELAND PARE
NOUNDS TIEV, NIPNESOIA �`•
NAIEN 9, 1987
IWO M,
DID 0 P E I I 1 6
EONPANI NANElADDIESS
Bituminous Roadways
Barber Construction Co.
BASE DID
ALTERNATE DID
BID #ONO
yes
AENNOVLEDGED AODENOONS
11 11 11
$33,935.00
$34,347.00
$14,600.00
$13,991.00
yes
Schifskey and Sons
$30,418.00
$12,980.00
yes
Midwest Asphalt Co.
$28,726.00
$13,875.00
yes
Electric Service Co.
$11,984.00
yes
L.
W
MEMO T0, MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM, MARY SAARION, DIRECTOR
PARRS, RECREATION AND FORESTRY
DATE, MARCH 10, 1987
RE, CONSIDERATION FOR APPROVAL OF THE PURCHASE OF CITY HALL
PLAY STRUCTURE.
The Parks end Recreation Commission met at their regular meeting on
February 26 and chess a pre-school play structure for placevent at
City Hall tot lot. Two play structure bide were reviewed. The attached
description was the structure chosen at $5.497.00.
The 1987 budget has set $7,500.00 aside in equipment capital outlay for
this play structure as bid from fund 100-360-4703. The cost of the play
structure and repair to current equipment at City Hall Park will not
exceed the $7,500.00 allotted.
RECOMMENDATION: To consider the approval to purchase a new play structure
as bid to be placed at City Hall tot lot with funds budgeted for 1987 in 100-
360- 4703, Parke Capital Equipment Outlay Fund for $5,497.00. The remaining
$2,003.00 will be used for other necessary equipment repair of play structure
located in City Parke.
MS/ol
BOB KLEIN & ASSOCIATES
Park & Playground Equipment
100Valley Lane 612.437-4525
Heslings, Mn, 55033
LA-ville Playsyslem
An exciting new design in the Miracle Playsystem lam- - —
ily is the new Lok-ville System. Utilizing a smaller deck
size and reliable, lough materials, the Lok-ville System
is both ellicienl and practical. Easy installation and
Miracle flexible componentry make the Lok-ville Sys
tem a central element in your playground design.
Ink-ville
Madel Number
1ri2-530
Ground Spacel5hipping Weight
IO'2" r 2:i 0"/2,OOn lbs.
Proleclive Nea
32'2" 41'0•
Overall Ileight/Dock Ileighl
8'3"l3'0•
7'r
Mark V
Sleelville Mark V
Model
166.529
Ground Space
32N" by 50'-0"
Shipping Waigld
7.375 lbs.
Protective Area
40'-0" by 66'.0"
I Overall Height
12'.0"
Deck Heighls
51.0.
!I
Number of Play Events 1
0
Child Capacity 1
25-30
See your Miracle reprnsenlative for a complele
doscuption of Ivadable components.
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COU Li
FROM: CLERK-ADMINISTRAT
DATE: MARCH 10, 1987
SUBJECT: 1987 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
The time is once again upon us for the Annual League of
Minnesota Cities Conference which will be held in Rochester
this year. The 1987 Budget provides for attendance to the
conference by a member of the City Council and myself and I
would request Council direction as to which member of the
City Council will be attending in order that reservations
may be made at the earliest possible date to secure hotel
reservations at an appropriate facility.
You direction in this matter would be greatly appreciated.
DFP/mjs
1987 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE HOUSING
HOUSING INFORMATION
FLAT RATE SINGLE DOUBLE
IsKahler Hotel, 20 Second Ave. N.W................. $5$
9.00
Holiday inn Downtown, 220 South Broadway ........
Midway Motor Lodge, 151716th Street S.W....... , . $44.00 $52.00 +5.00 Poolside
Ramada Inn,1625 South Broadway .... . ............ $42.00 144.00
Holiday Inn South,16..0 South Broadway... , ... , ....
$40.00 $47.00 +9.00 Poolside
NOTE: The Kabler Hotel is the Headquarters Hotel.
EARLY BIRD SPECIAL.
For member city officials only. The Kahler Hotel, Holiday Inn Downtown, Midway Motor Lodge, Ramada Inn, and Holiday Inn
South will each provide one complimentary weekend for two at their facilities, excluding meals, as an early bird special prile.
Only delegates sending in their housing registration for: by May 1, 1987 will be eligible. The winner must pay the room tax
and all Lntidr ej ch ewes.
wORTANTINSTRUCTIONS
Rooms will be reserved on a first -come, first -served basis. The earlier you make your reservations, the better the chance you
win have of getting your first choice hotel. The hotels will hold room blocks only until May 29, 1987, after which regular room
rates win be in effect on an as available basis.
A deposit equal to one night's lodging per room must accompany this housing form. Credit card preferred. Checks must be
payable to LMC Housing.
You will receive an acknowledgement of your reservation from the assigned hotel.
All changes in reservations or cancellations must be made through the Housing Bureau in writing.
HOUSING RESERVATION
Name: Title: —
City or Organization: --
Address:
City: Zi
Statc: p:
Arrival Date:
Hotel Preference
Fist: —
Special Requirements: _
Names of An Occupants:
Arrival Time: Departure Date:
Second:
Do you wish to guarantee payment
for arrival after 6:00 p m. t
Yes.— No —..—
Enclosed is aeposit equal to one right's lodging per room.
(Credit Card Preferred)
League of Minnesota Cities Housing Bureau
Rochester Convention & Visitors Bureau
220 South Broadway, Suite 100
Rochester, MN 55W4
Attn: Pam Wilson
IF PAYING BY CHECK MAKE PAYABLE TO:
LMC HOUSING
Third:
Credit Card Preferred
Credit Cud Company
Card Number
Expiration Date
The LMC Housing Bureau is authorized to use
the above card to guarantee my hotel
reservations reserved by me.1 understand that
one night's room will be billed through this card
B 1 fail to show up for my assigned housing on
the confirmed dale unless 1 have cancelled my
reservations with the hotel at least 24 hours in
advance.
rim dlrrw,m nil,
22
Minnesota Cities
1987 LMC ANNUAL CONFERENCE
REGISTRATION FORM
GENERAL DELEGATE REGISTRATION JUNE 9-12, 1987
number total
Advance registration (before June 5) ....................... $130.00
Registration at Conference...............................$155.00
Registrallun fee includes badge, admission to as general sessinaslwnrkshops, and tickets for meal functions on the general program: Wednesdy and
Thursday coffee in exhibit area, Wednesday and'Ihursday lunch, Thursday banquet, Friday coffee and rags. This registration DOES ... REPEAT....
DOES ... INCLUDE AMYORSVINI CONFERF.NCE LUNCHEON on Thursday, g7ds is a change from previous )'can. If your spouse attends, that
registration is complimentary, but you must purchase meal tickets fur your arouse. You may do so in the EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS section
below. If you pmae&ter ym*fl receive a porlcard acknowledgement to be presented at the advance registration desk to facilitate speedy registration.
Daytime
City: Cont ct Fuson: Telephone N
A.C.
p
L
E
A
5
E
R
1
N
T
run None a'kkn.me Title ipauae
tea. wUZ, W,SO
MINI -CONFERENCE REGISTRATION THURSDAY, DUNE 11
number total
Advance registration (before June 5) ........................ $60.00
Registration at Conference ................................ $70.00
hIWIConfereree registration fee includes badge, registrstinn, coffee, and hmclh roe If you pre -register, you will receive a postcard acknowledgement to be
presented at the prepaid regiatra ion deck to faciNate speedy aerslnGon. Mini.Confrrena delegates who otsn to attend the Thursday banquet should purchase
tickets below.
Regiv ereJ delegates to the General Con.'ererce we welcome to attend Mini-Corfetence session and do not need to purchase special registrations. L
Daytime
City: Contact Person:: - Telephone
A.C.
L
L F.
A
Full Name Nkkrane 'fete SIMK
(e.g. Bdkaml ie R. son
EXTRA CONFERENCE MEAL TICKETS
Order extra meal tickets below. Be sure to indicate the name of the person(s) for whom you order the tickets, or the name of
the delegate who should receive the extra tickets. Spouses' complimentary registration does not include meal tickets. Order
below. Mini -Conference registration does not include any meals except the Thursday luncheon.
Number Total
Luncheon Wednesday ............................................ $ 8.00
for whom __—
Mayors' Luncheon/Mini-Conference Luncheon Thursday ............... $11.25
for whom
BanquetThursday ............................................... $21.75
for whom — —
TOTAL ADVANCE RLGISTRATION................$
Send registration and payment to Gayle Brodl, Lengue of Minnesota Cities, 183 University Ave. East, St. foul,
MN 55101. Make checks payable ta: League of Minnesota Cities
Alnrch 1987 23
V�t-
,,,, �o
MEMO TO: Mayor & Council'[��J
FROM: Finance Director -Treasurer Brager
DATE: March 10, 1987
RE: 1987 Long Term Financial Plan
The Department Head Team has considered and adopted the
attached schedule for preparation of the 1987 Long Term
Financial Plan contingent upon your approval. Please
review and indicate your position on this calendar.
DB/cr
1967 Long Term Financial Plan
March 31 Public Service Plans Due to Department Head Team
April 6 Submit Public Service Plans to Council
April 14 Capital Improvement Plans due to Department
Head Team
April 21 Submit C.I.P. to Council
May 5 Review Public Service 5 C.I.P. with Council
and Finalize
May 26 First Reading
June 9 Second Meeting
C
C
RESOLUTION NO. 2180
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
RESOLUTION APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PINEWOOD SCHOOL, MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING CASE NO. 202-87
WHEREAS, the Mounds View School District has applied for
a Conditional Use Permit to construct a four classroom addition
to Pinewood Elementary School located at 5500 Quincy Street; and
WHEREAS, the Conditional Use Permit request is in confor-
mance with Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the Mounds View Planning Commission recommends
approval of this request.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Mounds View approves a Conditional Use Permit for a
four classroom addition to the Pinewood Elementary School located
at 5500 Quincy Street.
Adopted this 23rd day of March, 1987.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
ti
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 179-87
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE, OF MINNESOTA
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. 202-87, PINEWOOD SCHOOL ADDITION
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
WHEREAS, the Mounds View School District has
requested City approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an
addition to Pinewood School containing four classrooms) and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has reviewed the
proposal of the School District at their Agenda Session on
February 18, 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has determined that
the proposed addition in in conformance with ,the Municipal
Code and State Statutes; and
WHEREAS, this development does not require review by
the Rice Creek Watershed District.
NOW. THEREFORE, 0E IT RESOLVED, that the Mounds View
Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional
Use Permit request of the Mounds View School District for a
four classroom addition to Pinewood school.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the
City Council prior to approval of the minutes.
(SEAL)
ATTEST:
Adopted this 4th day of March, 1987.
Chairman
Acting Public Works/Community
Development Director
9), 101,
ORDINANCE NO. 418
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
r'1 COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNESOTA
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF MOUNDS VIEW BY
AMENDING CHAPTER 41 ENTITLED, "SPECIFIC REZONINGS"
The Council of the City of Mounds View does hereby ordain:
41.23 Pursuant to Chapter 40.23, the Official Mounds View
Zoning Map is hereby amended to reflect the following rezoning:
The following property shall be rezoned from R-1 to R-3:
AUDITOR'S SUBDIVISION NO. 89
EX W 50 FT AND EX PART SWLY OF
L PAP. WITH AND 150 FT NELY
FROM CL OF STH 10/62 LOT 31
This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after the
date of its publication.
Read by the Council of the City of Mounds View on this
day of 1987.
Read and passed by the City Council of the City of Mounds
View this day of , 1987.
ATTEST:
Mayor
(SEAL)
Clerk -Administrator
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
6ty Attorney
MOUNDS VIEW PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 180-87
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
COUNTY OF RAMSEY
STATE OF MINNES0TA
RECOMMENDATION TO THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING MOUNDS VIEW
PLANNING CASE NO. 201-87, REZONING REQUEST BY
JOHN W. COOK, 2935 HIGHWAY 10 FROM R-1 to R-3
WHEREAS, John W. Cook has requested City approval
for a rezoning of the property located at 2935 Trunk Highway
10 from R-1 Single Family Residential. to R-3 Mediium Density
Residential; and
WHEREAS, the Hounds View Planning Commission reviewed
the requet that their February 18, 1907 Agenda Session and
determined the following,
1) The request is In compliance with the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan designation for
this property.
2) The property cannot be served by any future
extension of Knollwood Drive.
3) The property contains adequate land area for
purposes of developing up to six units of
residential housing within one building.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning
Commission recomends to the City Council that this property
be rezoned from R-1 Single Family to R-3 Medium Density
Residential.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Mounds View Planning
Commission directs Staff to forward this resolution to the
City Council prior to the approval of the minutes.
Adopted this 4th day of March, 1987.
( SEAL) Cha,_ —_--
�an
ATTEST:
Acting I'util[c Works%Commu:iity
Development Director
MIimo To: Planning Commir,nion
FROM: Director. of Public Burks/Community Development
DATN: February 11, [907
SUIIJL'CT: JOHN W. COOK RISUNIlsT TO Rii7ON14 PROPERTY AT 2935 111GIMAY
10 FROM R-1 TO R-3
I . ATTACHMENTS
1. Application dated February 3, 1907
2. Letter dated February 3, 1907
3. Plat Map Indicating Proposed Knollwood
Drive Extension
It. SUMMARY OF RRpUEST
The appl(cant requests to rezone his property from it-],
Single Family Residential District, to R-3, Medium Density
Residential District. '
III. PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
The property is .located in Planning District 6 of the
City's Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The plan reports that
( this property is proposed to be zoned Medium Density
Residential (R-2 or. R-3 residential zoning district).
Rezoning one lot could be considered spot• zoning. Spot
zoning is discouraged.
This property is located in the Planninq Districts 6 and 12
rezoning study area.
IV. STAFF R00011ML'NDATION
Staff recommends thal: the review of this rezoning
application be conducted in conjunction with the rezoning
study.
SW'1'/bac
MEMO TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CLERK —ADMINISTRATOR DATE: MARCH 10, 1987
SUBJECT: RESPONSE TO DOT ADVANCE NOTICE OF RULEMAKING
Attached to this memorandum please find the Staff's proposed
response to the Department of Transportation's Advance
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Comments regarding this item
must be received by the DOT no later than March 27.
Therefore, Staf-f" would request Council review and comments
at your March 16th Agenda Session and final approval at your
March 23rd Council Meeting In order that our response may be
received by the Federal government within the prescribed
time lines.
Your direction on this item would be appreciated.
DFP/mjs
Attachment:
L
March 24, 1987
ci q Of VOW 9 iew
RAMSEY COUNTY. MINNESOTA
2401 HIGHWAY 10
MOUNDS VIEW. MINN. 55112
784.0055
ROUGH DRAFT
Dockets Unit
Office of Hazardous Materials Transportation
Research and Special Programs Administration
U.S. Department of Transportation
400 Seventh Street• Southwest
Washington, U.C. 20590
RE: Docket No. PS-93; Notice 1
To Whom It May Concern:
The referenced Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking invites
public comment on the need for new or amended safety standards
for gas or hazardous liquid pipeline. The City of Mounds View
wishes to afford itself of this opportunity to once again state
our position, in a clear and concise manner, that current Federal
standards are wholly inadequate and require substantial modifica-
tion.
Our position is based on the premise that current regulations
were first put in place to protect public health, safety and
welfare and to preserve the environment. Evidence introduced
during the National Transportation Safety Board's (NTSB) in-
vestigation of the July 8, 1986 Williams Pipe Line Company (WPL)
incident in Mounds View as well as testimony given during the
NTSB's Board of Inquiry Hearing clearly shows the inadequacy of
current Federal regulations and the Office of Pipeline Safety's
(OPS) inspection program. The record further indicates that, at
least at it applies to WPL, there is a general lack of
compliance by the pipeline industry with both the intent and
the letter of Federal regulations.
It has also become apparent to the City that the general attitude
of the UPS is to regulate the pipeline industry in a manner which
leads one to believe the UPS has a predisposition to regulate in
favor of the industry.
The City is convinced that the only.way to correct the current
unacceptable level of pipeline regulation and inspection is to
® legislatively mandate those standards necessary to assure the
safe operation of interstate gas and hazardous liquid pipelines.
We will, however, continue to encourage any effort undertaken to
instigate and implement increased safety standards based upon
current regulations and wish to offer our comments regarding the
proposals identified in the referenced notice.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE TWO
MARCH 24, 1987
Proposal:
Require operators to provide local jurisdictions, fire
departments, and public safety agencies within one-half
mile of pipelines, maps, inventories, and descriptions
of transported substances, updated as appropriate. In
addition, provide local fire departments and public
safety agencies a copy of each operator's operations,
maintenance and emergency manual. (HR262; Minn. Rep.,
Rec. 1.4).
Response:
The Notice states under this subheading that, "...liaison
with public officials is required by CFR 192.615(c) and
195.402(c) (12) to plan responses in an emergency."
During the time the WPL No. 2 - 8 inch pipeline has been
under the control of WPL, no contact has been made by WPL
with the City of Mounds View to establish liaison.
In fact, testimony by a representative of WPL during
the NTSB Hoard of Inquiry Hearing indicated that it
is WPL's policy to establish liaison only with those
governmental units having storage facilities or
pumping stations within their. jurisdiction. Obviously,
the Federal regulations are both unclear to the
operators and unenforced by the UPS.
Questions:
(a) Should the Federal government mandate that operators
provide the information regardless of whether a local
jurisdiction or agency has requested it?
Response:
If the experience of Mounds View is any indication of
the general inclination of the industry, and we believe
it is, only when it is mandated will liaison be clearly
established between pipeline operators and all local
government jurisdictions along the route of their pipe
lines. Also, a pipeline can be less than one-half mile
outside of a jurisdiction's boundaries and not be
known to that jurisdiction, but in an emergency have
an impact upon that jurisdiction.
(b) Could iocal jurisdictions or agencies that want the
information obtain it under their own authority
without Federal intervention?
DOCKETS UNIT
PACE THREE
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
Only when the regulations are explicit will pipeline
operators provide this type of information. It is
clear from our own experience that operators will
only do what is clearly mandated and use Federal
regulations as a buffer between themselves and any
efforts by local jurisdictions to review their
operations.
(c) At present, do operators voluntarily provide the
information upon request of local authorities?
Response:
The City of Mounds View's experience during the past
eight months with WPL as well as the testimony of
Pipeline operators during hearings on Minnesota
legislative proposals containing similar requirements
as outlined in this proposal indicates that operators
are unwilling to allow review of their operations and
are skeptical of ti:e ability of local jurisdictions to
comprehend the information.
(d) How will the proposed requirement benefit emergency
preparedness?
Response:
Emergency preparedness will benefit from this require-
ment in that public safety agencies will be able to
include details on pipeline operations in their
emergency plans. Because the City had not had liaison
with WPL prior to July 8, 1986, the agencies responding
to the emergency on that date were unaware of the
exact details of the situation during the first moments
of the incident. Such details can be extremely
important when dealing with life and death situations.
2. Proposal•
Require operators to provide land owners within 1/2
mile of pipelines, written notice of each pipeline's
existence, its location, and how to identify and respond
to hazards. (H.R. 262)
Establish standards for uniform public education programs.
(Minn. Rep., Rec. 2.3)
Response:
An unofficial survey of residents along the route of WPL's
No. 2 - 8 inch line in Mounds View indicates that few were
C
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE FOUR
MARCH 24, 1987
aware of the existence of the pipeline, its location and
methods for responding to a hazard. In fact, residents who
have lived at this same location since before the line was
constructed, do not even recall receiving notices on the
pipeline which were supposedly distributed by WPL.
Current public education efforts are, at best, minimally
effective and so general in nature as not to attract the
attention of those members of the public to whom it is
intended.
Questions:
(a) Would the proposed written notice to land owners of
a pipeline's location and emergency response informa-
tion be a beneficial addition to the communication
required by the current. standard?
Response:
Current standards do not inform property owners of the
_ risks they face or what to do when they encounter a
' situation such as that experienced by the residents of
Mounds View on July 0, 1986. The purpose of a public
information program is to provide, not withhold,
information.
(b) What would be the cost of notifying all such land
owners?
Response:
The City is not in a position to determine the possible
cost of this proposal, however, it should be pointed out
that the proposal is designed to assist in protecting
the public health, safety and welfare. Any cost
considerations should be balanced against the value of a
human life.
(c) What compliance difficulties are foreseen for gas
distribution systems or other pipelines in residential
or urban areas in giving the proposed written notice?
Response:
Many options are available for distributing notices in
residential and urban areas including, but• not limited
to the inclusion of notices in utility billings,
( delivery using the services of various private delivery
services as well as the U. S. Postal Service, etc.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE FIVE
® MARCH 24, 1987
(d) Should public education programs be uniform or be
allowed to vary according to local conditions?
Response:
The basics of a public education program should be
uniform, however, consideration needs to be given to
local conditions which would require differences in the
types of information contained in a notice.
(e) What additional standards should be established for
uniform public education programs?
Response:
Any additional standards should at a minimum address
frequency of notices and the methodology used to
publish greater than 75% of the land owners or general
public intended to be notified are reached.
3. Proposal:
Require operators to post conspicuous signs at road
crossings. (H.R. 262)
Response:
Line markers are currently required at public road crossings
but no general standards exists regarding the size, color,
or amount of information contained on the sign. Therefore,
markers vary to a point that they do not always accomplish
the purpose for which they are intended.
Questions:
(a) Are pipeline markers at road crossings an important
factor in preventing damage from roadway excavation
activities or providing quicker response time to
emergency situations?
Response:
The posting of conspicuous signs at road crossings is
important to responders in emergency situations. Had
markers not been in place at the scene of the July 8,
1986 incident, the first responding fire department
units would not have been able to quickly assess the
situation and conclude that they were dealing with a
pipeline rupture.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE SIX
MARCH 24, 1987
The needs for signs to warn excavators of the location
of pipelines is necessary as long as the local units of
government having pipelines in their jurisdictions are
not provided detailed location maps which they then
would be able to include in the information they
give to excavators when issuing excavation permits.
(b) if roadway signs are important, should conspicuous
signs be required in all neighborhoods and urban areas
without regard for the problems of land use, installa-
tion, or aesthetic considerations?
Response:
There is an obvious need for reasonableness and
discretion when it comes to placing signs in urban areas
but if the need for such signs truly exists, all
possible impediments can be surmounted.
(c) What should be the standard for conspicuousness?
Response:
Conspicuousness should generally be defined as being
whatever is necessary to draw attention to the fact that
a pipeline is located in the immediate vicinity of the
pipeline marker. It is difficult to establish a
standard of this nature that will be applicable in all
possible situations. The regulations need to be written
in such a manner as to clearly state the intent and then
the enforcement officers should be given the discretion
to determine what is appropriate and yet fulfills the
intent of the regulations.
(d) Would "conspicuous" signs at road crossings interface
with other safety signs such as stop signs or rail-
road crossing signs?
Response:
Since there are accepted standards for public safety
signs, the design of pipeline markers should be easily
accomplished and such design should not detract from
these other signs.
4. Proposal:
Convert required shutoff valves on existing pipelines to
work automatically and require new pipelines to be
equipped with automatic shutoff valves. (H.R. 262)
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE SEVEN
MARCH 24, 1987
On new lines, install remote -control shutoff valves every
20 miles in rural areas; every 4 miles in urban areas.
Periodically test these valves. (Minn. Rep., Rec. 5.3)
Response:
The inEtallation of automatic or remote shutoff valves
provide an additional level of safety not currently available
on most pipelines. These valves could be activated at the
time of a rupture to prevent backflow of product which would
exacerbate a spill. The shorter the distance between these
valves limits the amount of product being spilled at a
rupture location which can be particularly important in
urban areas where a greater chance of injury or death exists.
Questions:
(a) For new pipelines, are automatic or remote -control shut-
off valves included in the design, and, if so, where are
they installed?
Response:
The City is unaware of current pipeline design
practices.
(b) Are automatic or remote -control shutoff valves
effective in mitigating the consequences of a pipe-
line accident?
Response:
Had an automatic or remote -control shutoff valve been
located where a manual valve currently exists on the WPL
No. 2 - 8 inch line at Mile Post 10, the amount of
product that spilled and fed the fire in Mounds View
would have been greatly reduced. It is possible that an
automatic valve would have limited the spill to the
extent that the fire and explosions causing injury and
death would have been prevented.
(c) Do automatic remote -control shutoff valves present
any operational difficulties?
Response:
These valves should only present operational
difficulties if they are not properly maintained
and clear operational guidelines are not established.
(d) What would be the conversion costs for existing
pipelines; the installation costs for new pipeline;
the operating costs for both?
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE. EIGHT
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
The City is not in a position to determine conversion or
operational costs for automatic or remote -control
shutoff valves on new or existing pipelines.
5. Proposal:
Require operators to determine and submit (to OPS) an
inventory, including specifications, of the types of
pipeline in their system. (HR 262)
Response:
In order for the OPS to develop a database necessary to
evaluate the possible development of trends or tendencies
towards failures among certain types of pipe, a complete
inventory is necessary.
Questions:
(a) What information should be submitted under the cate-
gory of "type" of pipeline?
Response:
Information that should be required to be submitted
should include, but not be limited to, name of
manufacture date of manufacture, type, e.g. seamless,
low or high voltage electric resistance weld, grade,
diameter and wall thickness.
(b) What are the benefits of requiring operators to submit
this information to OPS?
Response:
As stated in response to the general proposal, this
information would allow OPS to determine the development
of trend lines reflecting the level of safety of certain
types or manufacture of pipelines.
(c) Would the benefits outweight the costs of collecting
and submitting it, and of maintaining it?
Response:
In a single word, YESI The benefit to be achieved by
this effort would be to improve the ability of OPS to
protect• the public health, safety and welfare by
developing the ability to evaluate the safety of
( pipelines based upon the frequency of failure among
certain types or manufacture of pipelines.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE NINE
MARCH 24, 1987
6. Proposal:
Require integrity testing at least every two years, with
frequency and type of test determined case -by -case in
light of certain pipeline and environmental factors
(H.R. 262)
Require tests every three years to determine release
potential. (92780)
Require increased use of "smart pigs" to detect flaws,
based on population density and certain pipeline and
environmental factors. (Subcommittee, Fossil and
Synthetic Fuels; Mr. Sikorski)
Response:
Once a pipeline is constructed and/or pressure tested
pursuant to Federal regulations, the line is allowed to
continue to operate for an indefinite period of time without
retesting to demonstrate the continuing structural integrity
of the pipeline. Since nothing lasts forever no matter how
carefully it is taken care of, to allow a pipeline to operate
without testing its structural integrity on a regular basis
ignores that fact and places the public and environment at
risk.
Questions:
(a) Should the 1.25 safety margin mandated for existing
HVL pipeline be required for existing pipelines
carrying other petroleum products or natural gas?
Response:
A safety margin should be required for all pipelines,
new or existing; product, HVL or gas. it —is the opinion
of the City that the mandated 1.25 margin is wholly
inadequate and that a safety margin of at least 3 to 1
should be required.
d for
(b) product_, HVL, oruld periodic lgas gpipelines rity lin populatedng be areas?
all
areas?
Response:
Periodic integrity testing is the only means currently
available to determine whether or not a pipeline is
prone to failure. Corrosion testing is neither 100
percent accurate nor does it measure the structural
integrity of a pipeline. Also, as evidenced by the
Mounds View incident, the results of corrosion testing
DUCKETS UNIT
PAGE TEN
MARCH 24, 1987
are required to be reported to OPS nor are the results
of such testing, which show inadequate levels of corro-
sion protection, always promptly acted upon by the
operator.
(c) Are there adverse safety consequences associated
with periodic pressure testing?
Response:
The possibility of pressure reversals comes into play
once a pipeline is pressure tested, however, if the
safety margin is established at 3 to 1, the risk is
reduced to a negligible level.
(d) What would be the costs and benefits of industry wide
testing or testing on a selective basis?
Response:
The City is not in a position to determine the costs for
periodic pressure testing. The benefit is an increased
level of protection for the public and the environment
therefore the cost of a periodic pressure testing
program should be measured against the value of a human
life and the environment.
(e) Under what conditions should OPS require the use of
"smart pigs"?
Response:
Dependent upon the level of development of the
technology and the accuracy of the equipment, "smart
pigs" could be required to be used in all possible
circumstances and under all conditions.
7. Proposal:
Prohibit new pipelines within 150 feet of any permanently
inhabited facility. (HR 262)
Response:
The requirement of a "buffer zone" between a pipeline and
a permanently inhabited facility establishes a greater
level of safety than currently required by Federal regula-
tions. Many of the homes affected by the Mounds View
�1 incident are within 75 feet of the pipeline and were not
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE ELEVEN
MARCH 24, 1997
damaged not because of the level of separation but because
of the ability of the responding fire departments to
extinguish the flames before damage occurred and the general
topography of the area.
Questions:
(a) How would the proposed 300 foot zone affect the
occurence or results of accidents?
Response:
A 300 foot "buffer zone" would not have an impact upon
the occurrence of accidents but would have a definite
affect upon the possible results. A distance of 150
feet from an inhabited building, would, depending upon
inhabited 'building, would, depending upon the topography
of the area, significantly reduce, if not eliminate, the
risks to building occupants assuming no non -liquid
hazards such as vapor clouds would develop and spread
beyond the limits of the buffer zone.
(b) What compliance or operational difficulties are
foreseen?
Response:
Compliance with this proposal requires flexibility in
the location of pipelines and cooperation between
operators and local government jurisdictions. No
operational difficulties can be seen to result from this
requirement.
(c) Should exemptions be permitted for pipelines on
existing, or enlargements of existing, rights -of -ways;
for replacements or relocations or existing pipelines?
Response:
Exemptions should be granted only for the replacement of
pipelines within the same trench in which the old
pipeline was located. Any relocation or expansion of
existing pipelines and use or expansion of existing
right-of-way should be in compliance with the proposed
requirement.
(d) Is land use for pipelines an appropriate Federal
function, or are State and local governments better
suited to plan such use?
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE. TWELVE
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
Land use is appropriately regulated by State or Local /
Government, however, operators have often hidden behind
the cloak of interstate commerce to prohibit efforts by
states and local units to regulate their operations
including the routing of a pipeline. The proposed
regulation would enable states or local units to legally
regulate pipeline routes as well as the distance of
inhabited facilities from such pipelines.
(e) How would land use be controlled within the proposed
zone after the pipeline is constructed?
Response:
Based upon this proposed regulation and the expected
charge that the "buffer zone" be protected by
appropriate regulation of land use, the control of land
use would appropriately be regulated by the local units
of government.
8. Proposal:
Specify "chemical fertilizer products" as "Hazardous
liquid." (H.R. 262)
Response:
Any product transported in an intrastate pipeline which is
hazardous to the public or the environment should be
regulated.
Questions:
(a) Besides anhydrous ammonia, what products transported by
pipeline would be covered by the suggested definitional
change?
Response:
The City is not in a position to respond to this
question knowledgeably.
(b) Are any of these products transported in pipelines
that are already subject to Part 195 because the
pipeline also carries a regulated commodity
such as anhydrous ammonia?
Response:
The City is not• in a position to respond to this
�- question knowledgeably.
e
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE THIRTEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
(c) Do any unregulated pipelines carrying these products
pose a sufficient threat to public safety to warrant
imposition of Part 195 safety standards?
Response:
The City does not have the data needed to respond to
this question and would submit that no comprehensive
databaserpurrently exists that could provide the
information needed to answer this question.
9. Proposal:
Include carbon dioxide (CO2) pipelines in the regulation of
hazardous liquid pipelines. (Subcommittee on Fossil and
Synthetic Fuels)
Response: The U. S. Department of Transportation Research
and Special Programs Administration, Materials Transporta-
tion Bureau's "Guidebook for Hazardous Materials Incidents"
(DOT P5800.3) identifies carbon dioxide in all forms as
being hazardous to the public. As is the City's position
for anhydrous ammonia, any product being transported to
through interstate pipelines and considered to be hazardous
to the public or the environment should be regulated.
Questions:
(a) Do CO2 pipelines pose a sufficient threat to life or
property to warrant imposition of Federal safety
regulations?
Response:
Yes, CO2 can cause severe frost bite or death by means
of suffocation when a person has contact with the
product which has a tendency to concentrate in vapor
clouds in low areas.
(b) If Federal standards are imposed, should there be
exceptions for gathering or transmission lines in
rural areas?
Response:
Exemptions should be given only when sufficient
Information exists to document the fact that a
risk to the public or environment does not exist.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE FOURTEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
exists to document the fact that a risk to the public or
environment does not exist.
10. Proposal:
Require existing hazardous liquid pipelines to be coated or
cathodically protected to prevent corrosion. (52780)
Response:
To not require that existing uncoated pipelines be coated and
cathodically protected places the public and the environment
at great risk unnecessarily. There is no effective techno-
logy currently available that can accurately pinpoint active
corrosion nor is cathodic protection a fool -proof means to
prevent active corrosion from growing and causing detrimental
effects upon the structural integrity of a pipe. Even the
use of combined coating and cathodic protection is no
guarantee but two lines of defense that are aggressively
monitored and maintained are better than an ineffective
defense against corrosion which is what coating or cathodic
protection alone would be.
Questions:
(a) What would be the added cost of requiring full
cathodic protection on existing pipelines that are
ineffectively coated or bare?
Response:
The City is not in a position to determine costs for
implementing this proposal.
(b) Would this investment pay for itself in terms of
preventing corrosion caused accidents?
Response:
To answer a question with a question, what would be the
cost to the industry and the regulator both in actual
damages and goodwill if an accident or accidents were to
occur resulting in injury(ies), death(s) or environ-
mental damage and it was learned that no efforts were
undertaken to prevent corrosion? In our opinion any
expense to prevent those terrible possibilities is
prudent and reasonable.
(c) what alternatives to the present or proposed require-
ments are there to prevent corrosion -caused leaks on
existing pipelines?
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE FIFTEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
To our knowledge, there are no other viable alternatives
for preventing corrosion.
(d) Should more frequent tests be required to discover
areas of active corrosion?
Response:
Testing of a pipeline to detect active areas of
corrosion such as a "close interval survey" should
occur at least annually and preferrably every six
months.
11. Proposal:
Require new hazardous liquid pipelines and existing ones in
populated areas to have doubled -wall construction with
continuous leak detection systems. (52780; Minn. Rep., Rec.
5.5)
Resoonse:
Even when adequate separation between a hazardous liquid
pipeline and occupied buildings exist, there is no guarantee
that leaking product would not go undetected for a signifi-
cant period of time and when it does "come to the surface"
significant damage hasn't already occurred. Double walled
pipe with a leak detection system would both, prevent the
leaking product from creating a public safety and/or envir-
onmental hazard as well as isolating the leak and allowing
quick repair.
Questions:
(a) What has been the operating experience, if any, with
this technology?
Response:
The City is not aware of the details of this technology,
but is aware of the fact that it is used in many
European countries.
(b) What would be the costs of implementation?
Response:
The City has no information regarding the cost of this
technology.
(c) After implementation, would would be the expected
impact on safety in terms of accidents prevented or
consequences lessened?
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE SIXTEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
It would be reasonable to expect that except in cases
involving a major catastrophe, accidents and the
consequences thereof would be completely elimnated on
pipelines using this technology.
12. Proposals:
Require operators to improve ability to rapidly locate and
isolate leaks through remote -controlled valves, (spaced
according to population) remotely monitored gauges, and
meters at pump stations, and more specific emergency
procedures. (Minn. Rep., Rec. 4.4)
Establish release (Leak) detection standards for hazardous
pipelines (S2780)
Response:
In the case of the Mounds View incident, had WPL been able to
isolate and locate the leak, the severity of the accident
could have been mitigated significantly. Instead, the
rupture leaked gasoline for approximately 25 minutes before
the explosion and fire was first reported and continued to
leak fuel for an additional hour and fifteen minutes before
a manual valve was closed and product stopped flowing putting
out the fire. Until the fire was reported, WPL had no idea
where the rupture might have occurred along the 165 mile
route of the pipeline.
Any measures undertaken to reduce the time needed to locate
and isolate leaks will reduce the risk of injury(ies),
death(s), or environmental damage.
puestions:
(a) What technology is commercially available that would
enable prompt leak detection so that corrective
action could be taken in populated areas before deaths,
injuries or substantial property damages would be
likely to occur?
Response:
The City is aware that various technological advances
have occurred in this area but is unaware of the details
or cost of implementation.
(b) What are the costs of implementation?
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE. SEVENTEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
See response to 12 (a)..
(c) What changes might be made to the emergency procedures
to improve operators' response to emergencies?
Response:
Some very obvious and easily implemented changes would
be:
1. once the pumps are shut down in response to a
pressure drop and suspected leak, all valves along
the route of the pipe should be closed to isolate
sections of the pipeline, reduce the risk of back -
flow of product and reduce the potential amount of
product that might leak from the failure site.
2. operators should immediately, upon noting a
pressure drop and suspected leak, notify all
public safety agencies along the route of the
pipeline and request their assistance in locating
the site of the leak.
3. operators should establish and maintain liaison
with local governmental units and public safety
agencies along the route of a pipeline and
provide all parties with copies of their
emergency plans.
13. Proposal:
Require siting standards for hazardous liquid pipelines
similar to those in effect for gas pipelines.
(Mr. Sikorski)
Response:
Pipeline siting standards based upon land use do not
necessarily accomplish the purpose of protecting public
health, safety and welfare. A more precise system needs
to be developed and put in operation based upon such
factors as land use, population density, building
density, proximity to users of other hazardous materials,
etc. Only when detailed standards are established will
the public and the environment be clearly protected from
the potential impacts of pipelines.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE EIGHTEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
Questions:
(a) How would the class location criteria in part 192
Improve the safety of hazardous liquid pipelines if
applied to the regulations in part 195.
Response:
The implementation of class locations containing CFR
192.5 is a good beginning to developing a more
sensitive set of siting criteria. These criteria
could improve safety by using less general and more
specific measures of determining the level of risk as it
relates to proximity of a land use to a pipeline.
(b) Should any of the part 192 standards based on class
location for which there is no comparable part 195
requirement be added to part 195, and why?
Response:
g Most definitely yes, see response to 13 (a).
14. Proposal:
Require for hazardous liquid pipelines an increased safety
margin between test and operating pressure depending upon
population or environmental factors. (MN Rep. Rec 4.1)
Response: Studies of the phenomenon known as "pressure
reversals" clearly shows that a 20% safety margin does not.
provide an appropriate level of protection for the public
or the environment.
Questions:
(a) What would be the rationale for development and
selection of an increased safety margin for hazardous
liquid pipelines?
Response:
The rationale for determining safety margin standards
should be whatever is needed to reduce the risk of
pipeline accidents including, but not limited to, the
incidents of a failure among the various type of pipe
manufacturer which would include an analysis of the
pipe's age and operating pressure and a complete
analysis of the data and information available on
pressure reversals.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE NINETEEN
MARCH 24, 1987
(c) What would be the result in terms of accidents prevented
if the current safety margin were increased?
Response:
It would be premature to conclude that increased safety
margins would have an impact on the frequency of J
accidents without ample opportunity being given to
evaluate the results of an increase in the safety
margin over time.
(d) What would be the incremental cost of increasing the
margin?
Response:
The City is not in a position to address the issue of
cost to increase the required safety margin, however,
any cost considerations need to be balanced' against the
value of a human life and our environment.
15. Proposal:
Require submission of four year comprehensive reports on
the condition of pipelines (corrosion, leaks, etc.). Use
these as basis for remedial action, i.e. pigs, pressure
tests, replacement. (Min.. Rep., Rec. 42.)
Response:
It is the experience of the City of Mounds View that either
the operators nor OPS maintain detailed data on the condition
of pipeline systems. Also, it is shown by the evidence
developed after the Mounds View incident that operators are
not prone to voluntarily provide such data. In order to
ensure Lhat the nation's pipeline systems are properly
maintained, operators should be required to maintain and
report such data and take appropriate action to invesitgate
and repair deficiencies identified by the data.
Questions:
(a) What additional information about a pipeline's
condition, besides what is now or will be required to be
reported or recorded, would be useful in determining the
need for integrity testing?
Response:
Any information base should include the results of
required pipe -to -soil ration surveys as well as
regular close interval surveys.
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE TWENTY
MARCH 24, 1987
(b) What would be the paperwork burdens/costs of filing the
proposed information with UPS.
Response:
As has been the City's position in response to previous
questions of this nature, any concern over cost
considerations or the burden of additional paperwork
needs to be balanced against the value of a human life
and our environment.
16. Proposal:
Since seam failures on Electric Resistance Welded (ERW) pipe
have caused a number of accients, a study should be conducted
to learn with ERW pipe is susceptible to seam degradation
(Minn. Rep., Rec. 4.5).
Response:
There comes a time when a reasonable person would conclude
that a problem exists because of the increasing frequency of
occurrence. In the case of ERW pipe, the frequency and
severity of accidents would lead a reasonable person to
conclude that a possible problem exists and further analysis
of the data developed as a result of those accidents needs to
be made. The UPS is obligated by the purpose for which it
exists to investigate this issue and determine whether a
public safety hazard exists.
Questions:
(a) Because accident data shows the rate of ERW failures
as diminishing, will the expected benefits of any
generally applied remedy be expected to exceed costs?
Response:
Why must efforts to improve the level of operational
safety for pipelines be put in terms of cost? How many
people must die or be greviously injured and how much
damage must our environment suffer before we recognize
that these are irreplaceable resources and all
reasonable efforts must be expended to protect them?
(b) Should particular ERW pipelines that have experienced
ERW - related ruptures be replaced or tested frequently
in densely populated areas?
4
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE TWENTY-ONE
MARCH 24, 1987
Response:
It is the considered opinion of the City of Mounds View
that ERW pipe, particularly low voltage electric
resistance weld pipe, are susceptible to seam failure
while in operation due to defects that are inherent in
the manufacturing process. These defects are weakened
during the course of normal pipeline operations and the
deterioration of these defects can be exacerbated by
poor maintenance, such as inadequate cathodic
protection, of the pipeline by the operator. Based on
these beliefs, the City feels that operators having low
voltage ERW pipe in their system should be required to
develop and implement a replacement program over the
next ten years, irrespective of the location of the
pipeline. Until those pipelines are replaced, the
operators should further be required to establish and
implement an intensified testing program to monitor the
structural integrity of those pipes.
The aforementioned testing programs should also be
applied to all high voltage ERW pipelines and operators
should be required to replace these lines when failures
attributable to seam degradation becomes an issue of
concern.
(c) What remedy, if any, should be applied to
deter continued ERW-degradation discovered on pipe-
lines in any irea?
Response:
The City is unaware of any remedies short of replacement
currently available and technologically feasible to
deter continued ERW seam degradation.
17. Proposal:
Require operators to create or participate in 'one call"
systems. (HR 262)
Response:
on the morning of the Mounds View incident, WPL made no
effort to notify those jurisdictions through which their
pipeline runs of a rupture. Had they done so, there is a
possibility that the injuries and deaths that resulted from
the fire which occurred 25+ minutes after the first note of
a rupture may have been prevented.
g
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE TWENTY-TWO
MARCH 24, 1987
As a "one call" system is currently required for gas pipe-
line system operators and appears to be a reasonable means
for dealing with incidents of this nature, a requirement
that hazardous liquid pipeline operators make use of such
a system would not appear to be unreasonable.
Questions:
(a) Should "one call" systems be required to the exclusion
of alternative programs?
Response:
The Minnesota Governur's Commission on Pipeline Safety
evaluated various options to improving the means by
which agencies are notified of excavation occurring
in the vicinity of a pipeline or the failure of a
pipeline and concluded a "one call" system is the most
efficient and effective. In fact, systems that could
be adapted for this purpose are currently available
throughout the nation.
(b) Should participation be required in areas of low
population, such as class 1 and 2 locations for
gas pipelines or rural areas for hazardous liquid
pipelines, where the cost of participation may exceed
the potential benefits?
Response:
Participation should be required for operators of all
types of pipelines as well as variout utility system
operators. A system of this nature is not just designed
to limit hazards to the public but also the environment
which is an irreplaceable resource and, therefore,
participation should be required irrespective of the
location of the pipeline.
18. Fro osal:
Provide for increased federal oversight in design and
construction of pipelines. (HR 262)
Study the need for certification of pipeline and
construction personnel. (MN REP REC. 5.6)
Response:
Federal regulation of pipelines exists out of concern that
such systems are safe and do not pose a threat to the public
or the environment. How can the regulator be sure that the
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE TWENTY-THREE
MARCH 24, 1987
regulated is designing and constructing a safe system if
measures aren't taken to certify the skills of the indivi-
viduals and organizations involved in pipeline design and
construction? How can UPS be sure the pipelines are
being properly designed and constructed if they don't
review the plans and aren't notified of pending construc-
tion?
Questions:
(a) What safety problems are there in design and
construction of pipeline that current federal standards
do not cover adequately?
Response:
How can anyone determine that safety problems do or do
not exist in design and construction of pipelines if no
exists? The industry or federal standards might be
adequate but how does OPS know if an operator is abiding
by them if OPS doesn't review the plans and Inspect the
construction?
(b) These problems involve the abilities of persons who
design or construct pipelines, could they be resolved
by amending or enlarging the scope of the current j
qualification requirements, or is a federal certifi-
cation program needed to control the problem?
Response:
Again, if adequate oversight doesn't exist, how can a
determination regarding the existence of a problem and
solution to it be made? It is common throughout the
nation that engineers and architects are licensed by
the states in which they practice. Since interstate
pipeline designers cannot be regulated by anyone other
than the federal govrnment, it would seem reasonable to
require their certification by UPS.
(c) Do state or local jurisdictions commonly require
review or certification of pipeline design plans
by a licensed professional engineer before granting
construction permits?
Response:
Except where superceded by federal law, such as is the
case with interstate pipelines, most states and
DOCKETS UNIT
PAGE TWENTY-FOUR
MARCH 24, 1987
local jurisdictions require a review and/or certifi-
cation of design plans for all underground utilities
by a licensed professional engineer before the
issuance of construction permits.
The City would hope that our comments would receive serious
consideration by OPS when developing positions on these
proposals. The City reserves its rights to provide
additional comments during the time the docket remains open.
Sincerely,
CITY OF MOUNDS VIEW
Jerome 11. Links
Mayor
JWL/mjs
cc: Senator Dave Durenberger
Senator Rudy 6oschwitz
Governor Rudy Perpich
Senator Steve Novak
Representative Dan Knuth
3
W,r,.. I `/
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Public Works Foreman Rose
DATE: March 12, 1987
SUBJECT: WELL NO. 1 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR
PROJECT 1986-1
During the summer of 1986, inspection and maintenance of Well
No. 1 pump and motor occurred. You may also recall extensive
repair of the electrical system that occurred due to an
electrical explosion. Although the well's pump and motor were
replaced during that summer due to their wear and condition, they
were never Put into service at that time because of the
electrical and control systems being inoperative. The electrical
and control systems were finally operational approximately two
months ago, and Well No. 1 was put into service.
Upon the initial monitoring and testing, Well No. 1's expected
production of 1,000 gallons per minute was not being met.
Further testing and analysis took place with the contractor,
Bergerson-Caswell, and those finding also concluded that the
production would range between 725 and 850 gallons per minute.
Staff did further exploration and found that the original bid
information was incorrect with regard to static, draw -down and
total dynamic head footage. Minor corrections were made during
the inspection process, but the major significance was missed;
total dynamic head. During March of last year, our Engineer at
that time recommended, and you approved, the project addendum for
a new pump and new energy efficient motor. They were a 5 stage,
12" trimmed impeller, Delta pump and a 125 hp Newman, 91%
efficient motor. The worn equipment was a 7 stage, 12" trimmed
impeller, Fairbanks Morse and the same brand motor, 81%
efficient. The new equipment will not provide the required 1,000
gallons per minute primarily because of the subtraction of the 2
stages.
It is important for the City Water Department to have wells that
will provide a minimum of 1,000 gallons per minutes for two major
reasons:
At all well sites, the injection of chemicals occur when
the well is running. This injection rate is based on
1,000 gallons per minute. Although it can be adjusted to
any rate of flow, the flow should be constant to allow for
proper chemical feeding.
The City had been on an energy program for a year and a
half which has saved us considerable dollars.. When Staff
calculated the feasibility of going to energy off peak, it
was based on our storage capabilities and pumping rates.
The pumpinj rate used was a minimum of 1,000 gallons per
minute per well in operation.
Clerk -Administrator and City Council
March 12, 1987
Page Two
These two reasons make it almost mandatory that we design and/or
rebuild wells to a minimum production of 1,000 gallons per
minute; for consistency of chemical feeding and meeting supply
demands at a savings of energy costs.
Staff has met with the president of Bergerson-Caswell to discuss
the problems that have occurred here. lie understands our problem
but basically feels that it was our Staff giving them that wrong
information that led to this problem. I then asked him to review
the new information given to him and to give the City a quote
with the necessary changes of equipment that would provide a
1,000 gallons per minute for Well No. 1.
I have received Bergerson Caswell's quote as well as obtained
another quote which I would like to discuss with your at your
Agenda Meeting.
should you have any other questions, I will be more than glad to
answer them at the Agenda Meeting.
SAR/bac
r.
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council
FROM: Public Works Foreman Rose
DATE: March 12, 1987 /
SUBJECT: STREET SWEEPING BIDS (QUOTES) - PROJECT 87-1
The bid opening was set for February 27, 1987 at 2:60 p.m. Only
one bid.was received and without a required bid bond. Therefore,
a first action required would be to formally reject all bids
received due to bid requirement not being met.
1 called the vendors we had requested bids from to question why
we had not received them. Three of the seven had not bid because
of past year practices, one was in the mail, and two just hadn't
bothered. Due to the timeline available, I discussed the matter
with Clerk -Administrator Pauley and we decided to go with
quotes. Quotes to he either total price, hourly rate or both,
preferably.
The following quotes have been
received:
1.
Clean Sweep, Inc.
$
5,668.00
---
2.
Allied Blacktop Co.
$
51.00/hour
3.
Crosstown Sweeping Corp.
$
7,500.00
$
54.00/hour
4.
Foss Sweeping
$
5,940.00
$
49.50/hour
5.
Loomis, Inc.
$
6,050.00
$
58.00/hour
* 6.
American Sweepers, Inc.
$
4,975.00
$
---
*Bid
price for three years fixed.
The low quote of $4,975.00 from American Sweepers, Inc. is the
same contractor from the previous 2 years. He has further made
his quote more appealing by fixing that same price for the next 2
years. I have discussed the matter with the City Attorney and we
recommend that a contract be drafted with American Sweeping,
inc. to include the following:
1. Contract for City sweeping for Spring 1987/88/89.
2. Price per year - $4,975.00.
3. Insurance requirements for General Liability:
$50,000 Property Damage
$100,000 Per Person
$300,000 Per Occurrence
4. Posting Security of $500.00 at time of contract approval
released after sweeping is completed this year.
5. For 1988 and 1989, security be submitted prior to February
15 and sweeping dates set. Security again released after
completion.
Clerk -Administrator and City Council
March 12, 1987
Page Two
This type of contract would hopefully allow the City to know in
advance its expenses. Also, if the vendor should choose to break
said contract, the City would still have time to obtain other
quotes and get the work done. $7,250 is the budgeted amount.
Staff recommends that a contract be drafted with American
Sweeping for your approval at the next regular City Council
meeting. Contract shall include the above items and any others
you may require.
SAR/bac
G
MEMO TO: Clerk -Administrator and City Council 1�
FROM: Public Works Foreman Rose
DATE: March 12, 1987
SUBJECT: WELL NO. 6 CHLORINATION SYSTEM REPLACEMENT
The Water Operation Capital Expenditure Budget included the above
item. The budgeted amount is $2,000.00. Staff has received two
quotes for one chlorination system as well as a booster punp
which needs to be replaced. The quotes are as follows:
Layne Minnesota Co. $2,264.00
Vessco, Inc. $2,810.00
Staff recommends authorization to purchase the equipment from
Layne Minnesota Co. for $2,264.00. The overage of $264.00 can be
funded from the 44124 account, Supplies Utilities.
Staff, unless otherwise directed, with place this item on the
consent agenda for your next regular meeting.
SAR/bac
t.
MEMO TO: City Council and Clerk -Administrator
FROM: Steve Pose
DATE: March 12, 1987
RE: Temp/Part Time Employment of Dan Otterson
This is an after-tlie-fact approval request. I received
notice that Dan Otterson could work for us during his
winter college break. Due to the timeline of the notice,
it was impossible to get the Council's prior approval.
I discussed the matter with Clerk -Administrator Donald
Pauley and we decided to go ahead as we needed the help.
He worked February 27, March 2, 3, and 4 for 8•hours
each. Dan has worked with us for the last 3 years and
is expected to work also this summer. As you all know,
we are currently working with a 7 man Public Works group
versus 8 normally. The chance to have someone such as
Dan available because of his experience was thought to
be useful and in the City's best interest.
Therefore, I would request that you approve the after -the -
fact work agreement with Dan Otterson at $5.50 per hour
for the 32 hours worked on the consent agenda at your
next meeting. Funding will come from the present unfilled
Park Maintenance position.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Thank. you.
SR/cr