Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-06-24 PC PacketAPPROVAL OF THE AGENDA APPROVAL OF THE VICE -CHAIR MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF 2024 MEETING CALENDAR MEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 3, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PC MINUTES 01 -03 -24.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 24 -006 –Zoning Code Amendment To Chapter 13 To TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) Attachment 3 (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Planning Case 24 -003 –1230 Red Fox Road And 1221 Cummings Park Drive – Site Plan Review (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair: Kurtis Weber (2025) Commissioners: Jonathan Wicklund (2024) Arlene Mitchell (2024) Joshua Collins (2024) Shelley Blilie (2024) Brad Bjorklund (2025) Steven Jones (Alt) (2024) Steve Erler (Alt) (2025) Vacant Council Liaison: Emily Rousseau Planning Commission March 6, 2024 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address: 1245 W Highway 96 Arden Hills MN 55112 Phone: 651 -792 -7800 Website : www.cityofardenhills.org City Vision Arden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting, strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirable City in which to live, work, and play. This meeting can be accessed remotely by joining via Zoom To join the Zoom meeting, click this link (or copy and paste it into a new browser): https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86831614288 This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website Agenda CALL TO ORDER 1. 2. Documents: 3. Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: 6. 7. 7.A. 7.B. 8. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDAAPPROVAL OF THE VICE -CHAIRMEMO.PDFAPPROVAL OF 2024 MEETING CALENDARMEMO.PDF APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 3, 2024 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PC MINUTES 01 -03 -24.PDF PLANNING CASES Planning Case 24 -006 –Zoning Code Amendment To Chapter 13 To TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) Attachment 3 (Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF Planning Case 24 -003 –1230 Red Fox Road And 1221 Cummings Park Drive – Site Plan Review (No Public Hearing Required) MEMO.PDF ATTACHMENT A.PDF ATTACHMENT B.PDF ATTACHMENT C.PDF ATTACHMENT D.PDF ATTACHMENT E.PDF UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS COMMENTS AND REPORTS Report From The City Council Planning Commission Comments ADJOURNMENT ADJOURN A quorum of the City Council may be present at this meeting. Chair:Kurtis Weber (2025)Commissioners:Jonathan Wicklund (2024)Arlene Mitchell (2024)Joshua Collins (2024)Shelley Blilie (2024)Brad Bjorklund (2025)Steven Jones (Alt) (2024)Steve Erler (Alt) (2025)VacantCouncil Liaison:Emily Rousseau Planning Commission March 6, 2024 6:30 p.m. City Hall Address:1245 W Highway 96Arden Hills MN 55112Phone:651 -792 -7800Website:www.cityofardenhills.orgCity VisionArden Hills is a strong community that values its unique environmental setting,strong residential neighborhoods, vital business community, well -maintained infrastructure, fiscal soundness, and our long -standing tradition as a desirableCity in which to live, work, and play.This meeting can be accessed remotely by joining via ZoomTo join the Zoom meeting, click this link (or copy and paste it into a new browser): https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86831614288This meeting will be streamed live on local Cable Channel 16 and available for playback on our website AgendaCALL TO ORDER1.2.Documents:3.Documents: 4. 4.A. Documents: 5. 5.A. Documents: 5.B. Documents: 6. 7. 7.A. 7.B. 8. Page 1 of 1 PC Agenda Item –2 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2024 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Appointment of Vice Chair Requested Action On January 8th, the City Council appointed Commissioner Weber as the Chair of the Planning Commission for 2024. City code delegates the responsibility for the appointment of a Vice Chair to the respective Committee or Commission (ordinance language below). The Planning Commission shall discuss and appoint a Vice Chair for 2024. Section 220.01, Subd. 10 states “ Unless otherwise specifically provided, the City Council shall annually appoint one (1) Member to serve as Chair of each Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body. The Chair shall be responsible for meeting agendas, presiding at meetings, minutes of meetings, and reports and recommendations to the City Council. Subcommittees of the Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body may be formed, from time to time, based upon the needs of the City. The Board, Committee, Commission or other appointed body may appoint a Member to serve as Vice-Chair.” Page 1 of 1 PC Agenda Item – 3 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2024 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: 2024 Meeting Calendar Requested Action The Planning Commission regularly meets on the first Wednesday of the month following the first Monday of the month at 6:30 PM. Planning staff has provided below the 2024 calendar of meeting dates based on this schedule. Historically, the Commission has rescheduled or canceled the July meeting due to the holiday. The decision to reschedule or cancel the July meeting is primarily based on land use applications received. As part of this formal action item, the Commission could set an alternate date of July 10th for this month. The Planning Commission should discuss and adopt the 2024 calendar. 2024 Meeting Dates January 3rd February 7th March 6th April 3rd May 8th June 5th July 3 rd (or July 10th) August 7th September 4th October 9th November 6th December 4th Approved: March 6, 2024 CITY OF ARDEN HILLS, MINNESOTA PLANNING COMMISSION WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 2024 6:30 P.M. - ARDEN HILLS CITY HALL CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Pursuant to due call and notice thereof, Chair Paul Vijums called to order the regular Planning Commission meeting at 6:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present were: Chair Paul Vijums, Commissioners Brad Bjorklund, Shelley Blilie, Joshua Collins, Steve Erler, Arlene Mitchell. Absent: Commissioners Kurtis Weber, Jonathan Wicklund, and Council Liaison Emily Rousseau. Also present were: Community Development Director Jessica Jagoe and Senior Planner Elena Fransen. APPROVAL OF AGENDA – JANUARY 3, 2024 Commissioner Mitchell moved, seconded by Commissioner Collins, to approve the January 3, 2024, agenda as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 6, 2023 – Planning Commission Regular Meeting Commissioner Bjorklund moved, seconded by Commissioner Blilie, to approve the December 6, 2023, Planning Commission Regular Meeting as presented. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). PLANNING CASES A.Planning Case 23-023; 1666 Oak Avenue – Variance – Public Hearing Not Required Senior Planner Fransen stated Plekkenpol Builders (“Applicant”) has requested a variance to construct a covered front porch addition on the property located at 1666 Oak Avenue (“Subject Property”). The Applicant has requested a variance to decrease the required front yard setback ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 2 from 40 feet to 29.6 feet. The existing principal structure is nonconforming with the front yard setback requirement and has a front yard setback of 36.5 feet. The Applicant is proposing a 36.2 foot by 7 foot covered porch addition that would encroach further into the required front yard setback. The addition would add 253 square feet to the existing structure. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: General Findings: 1. City Staff received a land use application for a variance request to the required R-1 Zoning District front yard setback at the Subject Property 1666 Oak Avenue. 2. A single-family dwelling is a permitted use within the R-1 Zoning District. 3. Section 1320.06 of the Arden Hills City Code requires a front yard setback of 40 feet within the R-1 Zoning District. 4. The covered front porch addition will not impede sight lines or obstruct the clear vision area from the roadways. 5. The existing principal structure is nonconforming with the front yard setback of 36.5 feet. 6. Section 1325.03 Subd. 2(D) establishes provisions for the expansion of nonconforming single and two-family dwellings. 7. The proposed covered front porch addition would have a front yard setback of 29.6 feet and does increase the nonconformity of the lot. 8. Section 1325.03 Subd. 2(E) establishes provisions for the addition of a covered front porch and would allow for a covered porch addition with a setback decrease of up to 9.125 feet based on the setback of the existing principal structure. 9. The proposed covered front porch addition would decrease the existing front yard setback by 6.9 feet. Variance Findings: 1. Variances are only permitted when they are in harmony with the general purposes and intent of the ordinance. 2. The proposed covered front porch addition would not alter the essential character of the neighborhood because the proposed design will integrate with the existing structure and will be compatible with the neighborhood. 3. The variance request is not based on economic considerations alone. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the motion options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 23-023 for a Variance to construct a covered front porch addition with a 29.6 front yard setback at 1666 Oak Avenue: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. A Building Permit shall be issued prior to commencement of construction. 2. The proposed building shall conform to all other standards and regulations in the City Code. 3. The proposed covered porch shall not be converted to a four season porch. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 3 Chair Vijums opened the meeting for public comments. There were no comments from the public. Chair Vijums opened the floor to Commissioner comments. Commissioner Mitchell commended the residents for working to take action to address the ice problems on their property. She indicated she supported the proposed request. Commissioner Bjorklund agreed, stating the proposed changes would not adversely impact the neighborhood, nor would sightlines be impacted. Commissioner Erler explained he supported the addition and commended the applicant for thinking through the proposed plans. Commissioner Blilie stated she supported the proposed addition. Chair Vijums asked why a variance was necessary if the proposed addition met the requirements for a covered front porch according to the City Code. Senior Planner Fransen stated that because the property is nonconforming, and the addition did not meet the requirements in the code section for the expansion of nonconforming dwellings, a variance was required. The requirements for a covered porch still applied but did not exempt the proposed addition from the requirements that must be met for the permitted expansion of a nonconforming dwelling. Chair Vijums commented he also supported the proposed variance and addition for the applicant. He asked if the architecture of the addition would match or complement the home. Senior Planner Fransen stated the homeowner’s intent was to incorporate the addition into the existing façade. Eric Mann, Plekkenpol Builders, reported it was his intent to use the same exterior building materials that were on the house. He noted the addition would be integrated into the home with the same colors. Commissioner Mitchell moved and Commissioner Bjorklund seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 23-023 for a Variance to construct a covered front porch addition at 1666 Oak Avenue based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the January 3, 2024, report to the Planning Commission. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). B. Planning Case 23-024; 3751 Lexington Avenue North – Mister Car Wash - Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review – Public Hearing ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 4 Senior Planner Fransen stated the Applicant has submitted a land use application for Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review, proposing to redevelop a 1.26-acre site located at 3751 Lexington Avenue N. The Subject Property is currently owned by CS&M Arden Hills LLC and the building was previously occupied by Arby’s restaurant which closed in early 2023. The Applicant is proposing to demolish the existing building and redevelop the site. Senior Planner Fransen explained the Applicant is proposing a one-story car wash tunnel building of approximately 5,400 square feet as well as 17 parking stalls with vacuums for self- serve use. The car wash proposal also includes two detached accessory structures for an attendant shelter and canopy as part of the drive-through design. The Applicant presented a concept plan at the City Council Work session on November 27, 2023. Councilmembers provided feedback on the building appearance and materials, parking, landscaping, lighting, fencing and other items. This commercial corridor includes Red Fox and Grey Fox roads and is bounded by Lexington Avenue, Highway 51, Interstate 694, and the Canadian Pacific railway. This area is used by a number of small and large businesses for a variety of retail, manufacturing, distribution, warehousing, and office uses. This area was largely developed between the 1950s and 1970s, though the retail area along Lexington Avenue has had some new development and redevelopment in the last 15 years. This area is marked as an area of possible redevelopment in 2040. Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the surrounding area, the Plan Evaluation and provided the Findings of Fact for review: 1. The property located at 3751 Lexington Avenue N. is designated for Commercial uses on the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. New building construction or site modification identified requires the submittal of a Site Plan Review application prior to construction. 3. For proposals for new construction, redevelopment of a site, and significant modifications to existing sites a PUD is required. 4. The PUD process allows for flexibility within the City’s regulations through a negotiated process with a Developer. 5. The Applicant has proposed a Master and Final Planned Unit Development for the development of one approximate 5,400 square foot exterior drive-through car wash on the Subject Property. 6. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development generally conforms to the requirements of the City Zoning Code and design standards. 7. Where the plan is not in conformance with the City Code, flexibility has been requested by the Applicant. 8. Flexibility through the PUD process has been requested in the following areas: landscaping, building positioning, building materials, transparency, drive-through facilities, lighting, and signage. 9. A public hearing for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, and Conditional Use Permit request is required before the request can be brought before the City Council. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 5 Senior Planner Fransen reviewed the motion options available to the Planning Commission for Planning Case 23-024 for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit, and Site Plan Review at 3751 Lexington Avenue N.: 1. Recommend Approval with Conditions 1. The project shall be completed in accordance with the submitted plans as amended by the conditions of approval. Any significant changes to these plans, as determined by the City Planner, shall require review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. The Master and Final Planned Unit Development approval shall expire one year from the date of City Council approval unless a building permit has been requested or a time extension has been granted by the City Council. The City Council may extend the expiration date of such approval upon written application by the person to whom the approval was granted. 3. A violation of any condition set forth in the permit shall be a violation of this Code, and shall be cause for revocation of the permit. 4. A Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be prepared by the City Attorney and subject to City Council approval for the Development for the exterior car wash. The Master and Final PUD Development Agreement shall be fully executed prior to the issuance of building permits. 5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a landscape financial security equal to 125% of the cost of the landscaping to be installed on the site shall be submitted. The Applicant must submit a detailed cost estimate for the landscaping so staff can determine the final amount. Landscape financial security shall be held for two full growing seasons. For any landscaping that is not in accordance with the approved landscaping plan at the end of two growing seasons, the Developer shall replace the material to the satisfaction of the City before the guarantee is released. Where this is not done, the City, at its sole discretion, may use the proceeds of the performance guarantee to accomplish performance. 6. A Grading and Erosion permit shall be obtained from the city’s Engineering Division prior to commencing any grading, land disturbance or utility activities. The Applicant shall be responsible for obtaining any permits necessary from other agencies, including but not limited to, MPCA, Rice Creek Watershed District, MnDOT and Ramsey County (i.e. ROW or access) prior to the start of any site activities. 7. The final plans shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer, Building Official, and Fire Marshal prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit. 8. Final grading, drainage, utility, and site plans shall be subject to approval by the Public Works Director, City Engineer, and City Planner prior to the issuance of a grading and erosion control permit or other development permits. 9. Upon completion of grading and utility work on the site, a grading as-built and utility as built shall be provided to the City for review. 10. Heavy duty silt fence and adequate erosion control around the entire construction site shall be required and maintained by the Developer during construction to ensure that sediment and storm water does not leave the project site. 11. The Applicant shall be responsible for protecting the proposed on-site storm sewer infrastructure and components and any existing storm sewer from exposure ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 6 to any and all stormwater runoff, sediments and debris during all construction activities. Temporary stormwater facilities shall be installed to protect the quality aspect of the proposed and existing stormwater facilities prior to and during construction activities. Maintenance of any and all temporary stormwater facilities shall be the responsibility of the Applicant. 12. All light poles, including base, shall be a maximum of 25 feet in height and shall be shoebox style, downward directed, with high-pressure sodium lamps or LED and flush lenses. 13. All rooftop or ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be hidden from view with the same materials used on the building in accordance with City Code requirements. 14. A separate zoning permit shall be required for a new fence on the site. 15. A separate sign permit shall be required for all signs on the site. 16. Any future trash and vacuum enclosures shall utilize gates and be constructed on three sides using the same materials and patterns used on the building. Locations shall be approved by the Planning Department. 17. The Applicant shall be financially responsible for all applicable water and sanitary charges. Rates applied shall be memorialized in the Development Agreement. 18. All disturbed boulevards shall be restored with sod. All areas of the site, where practical, shall be sodded or seeded and maintained. The property owner shall mow and maintain all site boulevards to the curb line of the public streets. 19. The proposed structures shall conform to all other regulations in the City Code. 20. The Applicant shall provide a copy of the Stormwater Management Report and verification of Rice Creek Watershed approval prior to the approval of Development Agreement. 2. Recommend Approval as Submitted 3. Recommend Denial 4. Table Chris Campbell, Mister Car Wash representative, introduced himself and his organization to the Commission. He reported all stores are corporately owned and operated. He explained there were 27 Mister Car Wash stores in the Twin Cities and noted there were five under development. He reviewed the site plan in further detail and noted the restraints on the property. He described how vehicles would flow through the site, noting a wash takes approximately two to three minutes to complete. He thanked the Commission for considering his request and stated he was available for comments or questions. Chair Vijums opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Chair Vijums invited anyone for or against the application to come forward and make comment. There being no comment Chair Vijums closed the public hearing at 7:34 p.m. Commissioner Blilie reported another car wash would be located one lot south of this property. She wanted to make the applicant aware of this and noted she had no problems with the proposed plans. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 7 Chair Vijums stated he wondered why two car washes would want to be located side by side on Lexington Avenue, given this was a high demand area. He believed the City Council should take into consideration how valuable these two properties were along Lexington Avenue and questioned if both properties should have car washes. Commissioner Erler agreed with these comments and wondered if two car washes on Lexington Avenue was a good use of land and was this something that fit with what the community wants and the City’s long-term planning goals. Commissioner Mitchell explained the free market makes those decisions and she supported the developer being able to make this investment based on the market research they have conducted. She stated this was a well thought through plan. Chair Vijums commented his concern was that revenue projections may not come out as expected for both car washes and he did not want additional unoccupied buildings along the Lexington Avenue corridor. He stated that he wanted the City Council to take this into consideration. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he was concerned with the location of the proposed parking spaces. He understood there was an agreement in place, but he wanted to better understand how these spaces would be dedicated. Mr. Campbell explained it was not his intent to need to use the additional spaces. He stated the during the City Council work session, the Council was concerned the site did not have adequate parking. He noted the original site plan had 18 vacuum stalls and three employee parking spaces. He reported this has since shifted to 17 vacuum stalls and five employee parking spaces. He indicated he would typically have three employees working at a time. He believed that all of the parking could be maintained onsite and the additional 19 spaces were a bonus. He reviewed the location of the additional parking spaces in further detail with the Commission. Commissioner Bjorklund stated he would like to add a condition for approval showing these additional 19 spaces on the site plan. Mr. Campbell stated he could provide this information to City staff. Commissioner Bjorklund commented further on how a condition for approval should be considered to address the Commission’s concern regarding the fact there would be two car washes next to each other. Commissioner Collins stated he believed this was outside the Commission’s purview. He noted the Commission was tasked with reviewing the merits of this planning case and explained the proposed use for this property was secondary. He stated that he did not think both car wash businesses would proceed and that one might self-select out, leaving the Planning Commission to review a different application for one of the sites in the future. Chair Vijums reported this was correct. He stated the observations of the Commission will be noted for the record and the City Council will be made aware of these voiced concerns. He indicated this was the best the Commission could do at this time. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 8 Commissioner Erler questioned if the applicant had a materials board available for the Commission to review. He stated he would like to see the veneer product that would be used on the building. Mr. Campbell provided a materials board to the Commission for their review. Commissioner Erler reported this property would have a large amount of illuminated signage. He indicated he could support the ground signage, but suggested the size and scale of the wall signs be reconsidered as well as the tube lighting on the building. Senior Planner Fransen noted the yellow tube lighting did not meet City requirements due to the proposed color and would require additional consideration. Chair Vijums asked if any other businesses in Arden Hills had similar lighting stretched across the top of its building and does Arden Hills want this look going forward. Senior Planner Fransen explained staff reviewed recent examples and noted there was a property that went through a PUD process and the proposed tube lighting on the canopy was not allowed though tube lighting on the principal structure was approved through a PUD amendment. She stated this information indicated that there was not a clear opinion on if this material would be approved. Chair Vijums asked the Applicant if other cities have allowed the yellow tube lighting. Luke Kittly, Director of Operations for Mister Car Wash, explained the Mister Car Wash in Hudson, Wisconsin is located along I-94. He stated the City of Hudson determined the tube lighting would not be allowed, given the heavy levels of traffic along I-94. He reported he has been successful installing this lighting at all other locations as it is a signature of the brand. He mentioned that there could be some flexibility with the use of the tube lighting. Commissioner Collins stated all lighting on the site was to be downlit or shoebox. He reported the tube lighting was not either of these, rather it was part of the business’s signage. He inquired if the City’s sign code should be amended to address this type of lighting. He asked about the Commission’s consideration of the proposed color of the lighting. He noted if this was a Holiday Station, they would be requesting blue lighting from the City. Senior Planner Fransen stated she interpreted this comment to mean that there could be more guidance for tube lighting in the City Code to determine if it is considered lighting, signage, or building materials. She shared that the Planning Commission could consider if this type of lighting is recommended based on the site characteristics and the location of the site. Commissioner Mitchell noted this lighting was part of their branding. She explained she would hate to have the applicant put up their building without all of their branding in place because the building would look less than in Arden Hills. Chair Vijums offered that the City may consider the design of buildings on Lexington Avenue. He did agree that the proposed yellow lighting was not a helping light but rather a branding light. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 9 Commissioner Bjorklund stated he considered the lighting to be signage which would increase the total wall signage requested by the Applicant. He expressed concern with how a precedent could be set if the City allowed this type of lighting for a new business. Commissioner Blilie offered that she would be ok with two car washes back to back and that she would grant the flexibility as the overall look was pleasing and aligned with the brand. Chair Vijums summarized the comments from the Commission stating it appears the Commission could support the lighting, possibly reduced, noting the yellow lighting was for branding purposes and should be allowed. Commissioner Collins asked staff to confirm what flexibility was being requested on the building transparency. Senior Planner Fransen reported the Applicant was proposing the use of vision and spandrel glass, with spandrel glass requiring flexibility to be considered as part of the total transparency. She indicated that the Applicant included additional vision glass on the other elevations as well. Commissioner Collins asked about the flexibility for exterior building materials. Senior Planner Fransen stated City required 75% of a building’s exterior to be constructed with preferred materials. She indicated the building was proposed to be a brick and stone veneer which was not listed as a preferred material. Commissioner Collins questioned what the problem was with the proposed fence based on the Code evaluation. Senior Planner Fransen stated the proposed building material for the fence did not fall within the City’s list of recommended materials which include finished and treated wood, brick, stone and wrought iron. She reported the applicant was proposing to use a composite material for the fence. Commissioner Collins discussed how vehicles would enter and exit this site when Arby’s was operational and noted he supported the entrance/exit remaining the same for the proposed car wash. Chair Vijums indicated he supported the location of the building as proposed. He explained he drove through the site today and it had a deep lot. He commented further on how traffic would flow in and through the site. He stated the Commission approved the use of a veneer façade for the Crew Car Wash. He commented on how building materials were evolving and noted the City Council may have to update its zoning code to allow for additional building and screening materials. He supported this item moving forward as is and noted the Council would have the final say when it came to the signs/tube lighting. He commended the applicant for bringing forward a strong proposal noting they had made good use of this site. ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 10 Commissioner Bjorklund asked that Condition 21 be added to the recommendation for approval requiring the applicant to identify the plan for the additional 19 parking spaces on the site plan. The Commission supported this recommendation. Commissioner Bjorklund moved and Commissioner Collins seconded a motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 23-024 for a Master Planned Unit Development, Final Planned Unit Development, Conditional Use Permit and Site Plan Review at 3751 Lexington Avenue North based on the findings of fact and the submitted plans, as amended by the conditions in the January 3, 2024, report to the Planning Commission with the addition of Condition 21 “The applicant shall provide a diagram of the 19 parking spaces provided for the site through the Reciprocal Easement Agreement” . The motion carried unanimously (6-0). UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS None. REPORTS A. Report from the City Council None. B. Planning Commission Comments and Requests Commissioner Bjorklund supported staff taking a look at how to address commercial development districts and economic issues. He stated other cities have bigger committees in place to consider redevelopment projects. Community Development Director Jagoe reported the City would be reviewing the zoning code and ordinances in 2024. She anticipated this would be a 12 to 18 month process and noted all of the zoning code ordinances would be updated and reviewed by the Planning Commission. Chair Vijums welcomed Commissioner Steve Erler to the Planning Commission. Chair Vijums read a prepared statement noting he had served as a Commissioner and Chair of the Planning Commission for several years. He stated he has cherished his time on the Planning Commission. He commented on the purpose of the Planning Commission which was to provide a recommendation to the City Council that was in the best interest of the community. He discussed how the recent Planning Cases have ruffled some feathers in the community. He believed his approach as the Chair has been to provide alternative perspectives, facts, experience and leadership. He noted he would continue to do this, but he would be doing this in a different capacity. He reported at the end of this meeting he would be resigning as the Chair and from the Planning Commission. He urged the Planning Commission to continue to do what was right for the community and to make Arden Hills the best place to live. Commissioner Bjorklund thanked Chair Vijums for his dedicated service to the City of Arden Hills. ADJOURN ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – January 3, 2024 11 Chair Vijums moved, seconded by Commissioner Bjorklund, to adjourn the January 3, 2024, Planning Commission Meeting at 8:28 p.m. The motion carried unanimously (6-0). Page 1 of 5 PC Agenda Item – 5A MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2024 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Jessica Jagoe, Community Development Director SUBJECT: Planning Case #24-006 – Public Hearing Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Request: Zoning Code Amendments – Chapter 13, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart Requested Action The City of Arden Hills is proposing to amend Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart of Zoning Code Chapter 13, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code (TRC) that would be a correction to be consistent with language as amended in 2016 within Section 3.3 which outlines the Joint Development Authority Review Process. The proposed amendment will not modify procedures as currently outlined in the city code. TCAAP Joint Development Authority In November 2012, the City Council approved a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) with Ramsey County which establishes a partnership between the City of Arden Hills and Ramsey County with the goal of the remediation and redevelopment of the 427-acre Twin Cities Army Ammunition Plant (TCAAP) site. Under the JPA, the City and County created a Joint Development Authority (JDA) that is the joint governing entity of the TCAAP site as allowed by the Joint Powers Act and MN State Laws. The JDA is the authority responsible for, but not limited to, environmental remediation, elimination of blight, infrastructure construction and financing, comprehensive planning and zoning, and economic development and redevelopment. The JDA Board is comprised of two County Commissioners, two City Councilmembers, and an additional non-elected City appointee as the Chair. Key points of the JPA are as follows: • The County will purchase the site from the U.S. Government and will work with Bolander and Sons to remediate the site to a residential standard including the demolition of remaining buildings. – Completed • The City will prepare an AUAR and Master Plan. The Master Plan will be approved by both the City and the County and will be implemented by the JDA. – Completed Page 2 of 5 • The City and County are responsible for installing their respective public infrastructure as outlined by the JPA. TBD Between 2013 – 2016, the City facilitated the process of developing the Master Plan for the TCAAP site, which as noted above was the responsibility of the City under the JPA. Planning elements of the Master Plan included defining the public engagement process, land use, circulation and movement, utilities, environmental remediation, parks and open space, implementation plan, and a regulatory plan. In 2015, the City adopted the TRC, Section 1380 of the zoning code which includes the regulating plan, land use table, design standards, and other regulations related to land development that are specific to the TCAAP site. Zoning Code Text Amendments Between August 2016 and December 2016, the City Council and other participants of the TCAAP Development Team met to discuss several Comprehensive Plan and TCAAP Redevelopment Code amendments that would be necessary for the implementation of the plan. On December 12, 2016, the City Council approved Ord. 2016-012 which adopted the entirety of the TRC as the new Section 1380 in the city code. Within that ordinance, one of those amendments was striking the previously identified Section 3.4, Special Development Plan in its entirety. In addition to the ordinance language that is listed in Section 1380 of the TRC, the ordinance includes the following attachments that are adopted as part of the city code: 1. Regulating Plan 2. Palette of Open Space Types 3. Development Review Chart 4. Street Cross Sections 5. Street Type Plan 6. Recommended Color Palette 7. Audubon Minnesota Bird-Safe Building Guidelines 8. TCAAP Energy Integration Resiliency Framework Attachment 3 is the Development Review Chart which is a flowchart illustration of the JDA Development Review Process as outlined in Section 3.3 of the TRC. Today, this document refers to the Special Development Plan review process as one of the pathways for development approval (Attachment A). In 2016, Attachment 3 was overlooked with the deletion of the Special Development Plan review process and did not get amended. The proposed amendment to Attachment 3 modifies the flowchart to reflect the processes as adopted on December 12, 2016 which deletes the middle review column labeled “Special Development Review” under the JDA Review and Approval Process (Attachment B). This amendment does not change any code language for the development review process as outlined in Section 3.3. The development review process remains the same as adopted in 2016. This amendment merely corrects Attachment 3 to properly reflect the text version of the city code in an illustrative form. Page 3 of 5 Current Attachment 3 Proposed Attachment 3 Page 4 of 5 Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings for consideration: General Findings: 1. The City of Arden Hills is proposing amendments to the illustration of Chapter 13 – Zoning Code, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart of the City Code. 2. The proposed ordinance will correct the exhibit to be consistent with the ordinance language in Section 3.3 which outlines the Joint Development Review Process. 3. The proposed amendment is not modifying procedures as currently outlined in the TRC of the Arden Hills City Code. 4. Amendments to the Zoning Code regulations require a public hearing prior to action by the City Council. 5. If the zoning amendments were approved, an Applicant would be required to submit a land use application that would be subject to the formal review process. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. • Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-006 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart of the Arden Hills City Code an exhibit to illustrate the Joint Development Authority Review Process, based on the findings of fact and the submitted materials in the March 6, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission. • Recommend Approval with Amendments: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-006 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart of the Arden Hills City Code an exhibit to illustrate the Joint Development Authority Review Process, based on the findings of fact and submitted materials in the March 6, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission with amendments: a specific reason should be included with all amendments. • Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial Planning Case 24-006 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart of the Arden Hills City Code an exhibit to illustrate the Joint Development Authority Review Process, based on the following findings: findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. Page 5 of 5 • Table: Motion to table Planning Case 24-006 for a Zoning Code Amendment to Chapter 13, Section 1380 – TCAAP Redevelopment Code, Attachment 3 – Development Flow Chart of the Arden Hills City Code an exhibit to illustrate the Joint Development Authority Review Process: a specific reason and information request should be included with a motion to table. Notice A Zoning Code Amendment requires a public hearing. Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on February 22, 2024. The City has not received any public comments regarding this case. Attachments A) Current Attachment 3 B) Draft Proposed Attachment 3 May 26, 2015 Attachment 3: Development Flow Chart TCAAP Redevelopment Code Page | 122 Attachment 3 Board Decisions Public Meetings Processes Staff Review Application Submitted Meets TRC Requirements or Allowed Flexibility Does Not Meet TRC Requirements or Allowed Flexibility Pre-Submittal Meeting Regular Process (3/5 vote) Meets all TRC requirements or is within flexibility as allowed by Table 3.3 TRC Amendment Request JDA Work Session (optional) JDA Public Hearing Planning Commission Public Hearing City Council Consideration Denial Approval Approval Denial Following Board denial, an applicant may revise and resubmit an application for either a City TRC Amendment or JDA Review of a project that meets TRC requirements or allowed flexibility. JDA Review and Approval Process City TRC Amendment Process Page 1 of 6 AGENDA ITEM – 5B MEMORANDUM DATE: March 6, 2024 TO: Planning Commission Chair and Commissioners FROM: Elena Fransen, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Planning Case #24-003 – Public Hearing Not Required Applicant: City of Arden Hills Property Location: 1230 Red Fox Road and 1221 Cummings Park Drive Request: Site Plan Review Requested Action The City of Arden Hills (“Applicant”) has submitted an application for a site plan review for the properties located at 1230 Red Fox Road and 1221 Cummings Park Drive (“Subject Properties”). The Applicant is proposing to construct an eight (8) foot tall security fence around the water tower that would be located within the required front yard. A Site Plan Review is required for fencing located in front of the principal structure in Business and Industrial Zoning Districts. Background 1. Overview of Request On August 28, 2023, the City Council approved a Professional Services Agreement with TKDA for the South Tower improvements project. Within the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) the South Tower at 1230 Red Fox Road (“Subject Property A”) is planned for improvements in 2024. Along with recommended repairs, it is desired to include security improvements to the South Tower in the 2024 improvements. At their December 18, 2023 work session meeting, the Assistant Public Works Director presented a project scope that included an 8-foot security perimeter fencing and gates. At this meeting, City Council direction was given for staff to pursue installation of the same security fencing at the City’s North Tower at 1221 Cumming Park Drive (“Subject Property B”). The Site Plan Review request includes the two water tower sites and is triggered due to the proposed location of the fencing. 2. Site Data Page 2 of 6 1230 Red Fox Road – South Tower (“Subject Property A”) Future Land Use Plan: Utility Existing Land Use: Industrial and Utility Zoning: I-Flex District Size: .69 Acres 1221 Cummings Park Drive – North Tower (“Subject Property B”) Future Land Use Plan: Utility Existing Land Use: Industrial and Utility Zoning: I-1 – Limited Industrial District Size: .65 Acres The City of Arden Hills owns the .69-acre parcel located to the south of Red Fox Road near Lexington Avenue North and the .65-acre parcel located to the north of Cummings Park Drive near Lexington Avenue North. Subject Property A is zoned I-Flex District and is guided as Utility in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Subject Property B is zoned I-1 – Limited Industrial District and is guided for Utility in the 2040 Land Use Plan. Subject Property A neighbors other Industrial and Utility uses to the north, south and west and Office uses to the east. Subject Property B neighbors other Industrial uses to the west, Office uses to the south, and park, recreational, or preserve and undeveloped uses to the north and east. Subject Property B also has neighboring residential uses to the northwest. Subject Property A is the site of the City’s South Water Tower and a booster station. The Water Tower is the principal structure and the booster station is an accessory structure. Subject Property B is the site of the City’s North Water Tower and two existing utility equipment shelters. The Water Tower is the principal structure and the equipment shelters are accessory structures. Aerial Map of Subject Property A Page 3 of 6 Aerial Map of Subject Property B Plan Evaluation Chapter 13, Zoning Code Review 1. 1325.05 – Design Standards, Subd. 4 – Screening, Section D – Fence Regulations 4. Height of Fences in Business and Industrial Districts. Fences may be up to eight (8) feet in height in the side and rear yards up to the front building line of the principal structure. Fences abutting residential districts shall conform to those regulations applicable to the residential district. Fences, solid walls and hedges in the minimum front yard setback may be allowed through Site Plan Review or as part of a Planned Unit Development as determined appropriate by the City Council based on site suitability to allow for additional screening and/or as a buffer for noise reduction. The Applicant is proposing a security fence that is located in the front, side, and rear yards of the Subject Properties. The proposed fencing includes an 8-foot tall chain link fence with four sides parallel to the property lines. The proposed height is permitted in the Zoning Code though a Site Plan Review is required for the proposed location in front of the principal structure to be allowed. The fencing proposed for Subject Property A would be offset from the north, east, and south property lines and run along the west property line. Portions of the fencing to the north, east, and west of the water tower are considered in front of the principal structure building line and within the front yard. Fencing within the front yard is proposed to include the existing booster station and transformers within the security perimeter. Page 4 of 6 Proposed Site Plan – Subject Property A The fencing proposed for Subject Property B would be offset from the south, west, and north property lines and run along the east property line. Portions of the fencing to the east, south, and west of the water tower are considered in front of the principal structure building line and within the front yard. Fencing within the front yard is proposed to include the existing utility equipment shelters within the security perimeter. The chain link fencing on the Subject Properties would include pivot gates with card readers, mechanical swing gates, and person gates. Vehicle access to the water towers and other on-site utility equipment will be maintained with additional perimeter security. Proposed Site Plan – Subject Property B Page 5 of 6 Findings of Fact The Planning Commission must make a finding as to whether or not the proposed application would adversely affect the surrounding neighborhood or the community as a whole based on the aforementioned factors. Staff offers the following findings of fact for consideration: 1. Subject Property A located at 1230 Red Fox Road is zoned I-Flex District and is designated for Utility use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 2. Subject Property B located at 1221 Cummings Park Drive is zoned I-1 District and is designated for Utility use in the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. 3. The Applicant is proposing a security perimeter fence that extends beyond the front building line of the principal structure in the required front yard on Subject Property A and Subject Property B. 4. An 8 foot tall fence is allowed in Business and Industrial districts, but a Site Plan Review is required for the location. 5. The proposed changes for the installation of security perimeter fencing would be in compliance with all provisions of the Zoning Code. 6. The proposed plan does not conflict with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning Code or the Comprehensive Plan for the City. Options and Motion Language Staff has provided the following options and motion language for this case. The Planning Commission should consider providing additional findings of fact as part of the motion to support their recommendation for approval or denial. 1. Recommend Approval: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-003 for a Site Plan Review to allow security perimeter fencing in front of the principal structure at 1230 Red Fox Road and 1221 Cummings Park Drive, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the March 6, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission. 2. Recommend Approval with Amendments: Motion to recommend approval of Planning Case 24-003 for a Site Plan Review to allow security perimeter fencing in front of the principal structure at 1230 Red Fox Road and 1221 Cummings Park Drive, based on the findings of fact and submitted plans in the March 6, 2024, Report to the Planning Commission with amendments: a specific reason should be included with all amendments. 3. Recommend Denial: Motion to recommend denial of Planning Case 24-003 for a Site Plan Review to allow security perimeter fencing in front of the principal structure at 1230 Red Fox Road and 1221 Cummings Park Drive, based on the following findings of fact: the Planning Commission should identify findings to deny should specifically reference the reasons for denial and why those reasons cannot be mitigated. 4. Table: Motion to table Planning Case 24-003 for a Site Plan Review to allow security perimeter fencing in front of the principal structure at 1230 Red Fox Road and 1221 Cummings Park Drive for the following reasons: the Planning Commission should identify a specific reason and/or information request should be included with a motion to table. Page 6 of 6 Notice and Public Comments Notice was published in the Pioneer Press on February 22, 2024. Notice was prepared by the City and mailed to property owners within 500 feet of the Subject Properties. Attachments A. Location Maps B. December 18, 2023 City Council Work Session PW Memo C. South Tower Security Fence – Site Plan D. North Tower Security Fence – Site Plan E. Fencing Specifications Sheet 1230 Red Fox Road Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 2/27/2024, 3:52:09 PM 0 0.06 0.110.03 mi 0 0.09 0.170.04 km 1:2,400 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN 1221 Cummings Park Drive Personal Property Tax Parcels Cities County Offices 2/27/2024, 3:50:47 PM 0 0.06 0.110.03 mi 0 0.09 0.170.04 km 1:2,400 Ramsey County Ramsey County MN Page 1 of 4 AGENDA ITEM – 3A MEMORANDUM DATE: December 18, 2023 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers Dave Perrault, City Administrator FROM: David Swearingen, P.E. Public Works Director / City Engineer SUBJECT: South Tower Improvements Project Discussion Budgeted Amount: Actual Amount: Funding Source: $250,000 (2024 CIP) $443,017 (estimate) Water Utility Fund, UASI grant Council Should Consider Council should consider: • The proposed South Tower Improvements related to repairs and security elements. • Adjusting the project budget to fit needs. Background/ Discussion On August 28, 2023 the City Council approved Professional Services Agreement with TKDA for the South Tower Improvements project. Within the City’s Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) the South Tower is planned for improvements in 2024. Public Works ordered an inspection of the South Tower that was completed Fall of 2022, the report recommendations include spot coating repairs, minor structural repairs and other improvements related to OSHA requirements. Along with the recommended repairs, it is desired to include security improvements that were identified in the City’s Water Risk and Resiliency Assessment to the South Tower with this project. Below are some options that are being considered: a. 8-ft Security perimeter fencing and gates b. Bollards for booster station generator c. Replace plywood cover of lower level access with lockable cover d. Card reader for site access control e. Intrusion alarms for overhead doors at booster station and water tower Page 2 of 4 Note from the Community Development Director: The City would need to complete a Site Plan Review for the installation of an 8-foot tall fence on the South Water site as shown on the site plan provided. The South Water site falls under the I-Flex Zoning District which is one of our Industrial Districts. The city code allows for an 8-foot tall fence up to the front building line of the principal structure. In this case, the water tower is the principal structure. The proposed fence would be installed in front of the booster station which is considered an accessory building on this site. The Site Plan Review process goes before the Planning Commission for a recommendation and then to the City Council for approval. Height of Fences in Business and Industrial Districts. Fences may be up to eight (8) feet in height in the side and rear yards up to the front building line of the principal structure. Fences abutting residential districts shall conform to those regulations applicable to the residential district. Fences, solid walls and hedges in the minimum front yard setback may be allowed through Site Plan Review or as part of a Planned Unit Development as determined appropriate by the City Council based on site suitability to allow for additional screening and/or as a buffer for noise reduction. TKDA has provided a project memo as Attachment A and the site layout can be reviewed in Attachment B. Staff is requesting any feedback to the proposed improvements from City Council. Given Council direction, staff and TKDA will work towards final plans and specifications to prepare the project to get authorization from Council at a future regular meeting for bidding. Budget Impact The 2024-2028 CIP currently has $250,000 budgeted for this project with the funding source being the water utility fund. The engineer’s opinion of probable cost is in the table below: Page 3 of 4 Public Works maintenance staff provided feedback on the proposed design as shown in Attachment B. They suggested, due to plowing procedures, to switch the card reader access gate to the eastern driveway and the pivot gate is still desired due to concerns of snow buildup and how that would impact the gate opening effectively. The western gate would then be changed to a mechanical swing gate which would be an estimated cost savings of $3,000 so the Total Capital Cost Estimate would be $375,840. Project costs as proposed with Public Works feedback: Repair costs 201,695$ Security improvement costs 111,500$ Construction contigency*62,639$ Engineering costs 67,183$ Total 443,017$ Security improvements Public Works staff strongly recommends: • Perimeter fencing • Pivot gate with card reader • Mechanical swing gate • Person gate Security improvements Public Works deems as optional but were identified in the City’s Water Risk and Resiliency Assessment: • Bollards • Lower level access hatch • Card reader at booster station • Card reader at water tower • Intrusion alarms on overhead bay doors Staff will be pursuing the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program to assist in funding the selected security improvements. Applications are typically accepted late January/early February of each year. It is unknown at this time what security improvements will be accepted as eligible for reimbursement until the grant determination is received but any amount awarded would offset the cost to the utility fund. The most up to date cash balance projections for the water fund is below, should Council move forward with all of the recommend improvements the water fund is healthy enough for the almost $200,000 in additional costs, but additional rate adjustments may be needed in future years to sustain the fund. $0.0 $0.5 $1.0 $1.5 $2.0 $2.5 $3.0 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033Millions Page 4 of 4 Attachments Attachment A – TKDA project memo Attachment B – Site plan layout Attachment C – Fence spec detail 9 3 8 . 1 1938.40938.729 3 8 . 8 3939.0216"16"8"24"16"X X X X X X X X X X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX940945938938939941942943 944 946 940 945 941 942 943 944 940945 941942943944 94 6 94 6 \\tkda.com\projects\a-f\ArdenHills\17993000\04_Production\01_CAD\03_Concepts\Arden_Hills_Site_Exhibit.dwg Dec 08, 2023 - 2:28pmDESCRIPTION OF REVISIONSNO.DATEBYDESIGNEDDRAWNCHECKEDDRAWING NO.PROJ. NO.10BAR IS ONE INCH ON ORIGINAL DRAWING. IF NOT ONE INCHON THIS DRAWING ADJUST SCALES ACCORDINGLY.ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORSSHALL VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS BYMEASUREMENT AT THE BUILDING AND/OR SITE444 Cedar Street, Suite 1500Saint Paul, MN 55101651.292.4400tkda.comFILENAME:PLOT DATE:NAME:SIGNATURE:LIC. NO.:DATE:----SITE PLAN------------------------------I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS PLAN, SPECIFICATION, ORREPORT WAS PREPARED BY ME OR UNDER MY DIRECTSUPERVISION AND THAT I AM A DULY LICENSED --- UNDER THELAWS OF THE STATE OF ---.ARDEN HILLS SOUTHTOWER IMPROVEMENTS17993000SCALE IN FEET07.51530EXISTING TRANSFORMEREXISTING BACK-UP GENERATOREXISTING BITUMINOUS DRIVEWAYEXISTING BOOSTERSTATION BUILDINGEXISTING SOUTHWATER TOWERVERTICAL PIVOT GATESLIDE GATELEGENDXFENCEBITUMINOUSPAVEMENTC-011CARD READER TO CONTROL GATE OR DOORAUTOMATIC DETECTOR TO OPEN GATETHREE POSITION KEY SWITCH4 LED OBSTRUCTION BEACON23123KEYNOTES1144PROPERTY LINEPERSON GATE TOP SIDE STANDARD PLATE NO. SPECIFICATION REFERENCEDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1 OF 2 PULL POST SPACING NOT TO EXCEED 500 FT. CHAIN LINK FABRIC SHALL BE: 1 NOTES: ALTERNATE ROLL FORMED END OR CORNER POST TOP & BRACE RAIL CORNER CONNECTION BENT PLATE BRACE CORNER CONNECTION TENSION WIRE1-1/2’’LINE POST LINE POST LINE POST LINE SECTION 10’ 0’’ CENTER TO CENTER 1-1/2’’APPROX.2’’ LINE POST ALTERNATE LINE POST ANCHORAGE 3’ 0’’2’ 6’’2’’ 1-1/2’’ ( APPROX. ) ALTERNATE BRACE BAR LOCATION 10’ 0’’ CENTER TO CENTER LINE POST 1’ 0’’60’’12’’ DIA. 10’’ DIA.2’’2’’1 CHAIN LINK FABRIC 3/8’’ DIA. TRUSS ROD BRACE BARS. CONNECT TO POSTS WITH BRACE BAND AND CUP TRUSS ROD 9 GA., 2 IN. MESH WITH KNUCKLED SELVAGE TOP AND BOTTOM, AND CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AASHTO M181 TYPE II OR IV. DESIGN 60-9322 SHALL BE FURNISHED IN TYPE II WHERE THE FENCE MUST CROSS SMALL BODIES PROVIDE ONLY 2 TIES BETWEEN LINE POSTS. WHEN THE DRIVEN LINE POST ANCHORAGE A CONCRETE ANCHORAGE SHALL BE USED FOR ALL TERMINAL POSTS AND FOR FIRST LINE THE TOP OF THE CONCRETE ANCHORAGE SHALL A BOTTOM TENSION WIRE IS REQUIRED ONLY EDGE OF A ROADWAY SHOULDER. WHEN THE FENCE IS 10 FT. OR LESS FROM THE 1-7/8’’1-5/8’’3-1/2’’3-1/2’’1-1/4’’1-5/8’’10 GA. ( .1345’’ ) LOCK LOOPS BRACE BAR LINE POST ALTERNATE ROLL FORMED DETAILS GALVANIZE PER SPEC. 3394 PULL, END OR CORNER POST3-3/8’’‘ 1/8’’THE WIRE FABRIC SHALL BE WOVEN INTO THE LOCK LOOPS FOR THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THE FABRIC PULL, END OR CORNER POST & ADJACENT LINE POST 9322K 2557 CHAIN LINK FENCE STEEL POSTS - LINE POSTS TERMINAL POSTS SHALL BE: END, CORNER OR PULL POSTS, 8’-0" LONG 7 GA. COIL SPRING STEEL TENSION WIRE 3.65 LBS./FT. OR ASTM F1043 ROLL FORMED, ( 3-1/2’’ X 3-1/2’’ ) 5.10 LBS./FT. SHALL BE TYPE IV (VINYL COATED FABRIC). OF WATER, SUCH AS PONDS THAT FREEZE DURING POST(S) ADJACENT TO THE TERMINAL POSTS. BE CROWNED 1 IN. ABOVE THE NATURAL GROUND. ALUMINIZED STEEL OR 0.149 IN. ALUMINUM TIES. THE WINTER, USE 11 GA. GALVANIZED OR WIRE TIES MAY BE 9 GA. GALVANIZED OR ALUMINIZED STEEL OR 0.179 IN. MIN. ALUMINUM (ALUMINUM COATED STEEL). DESIGN 60V-9322 NPS (NOMINAL PIPE SIZE) 2’’ NOMINAL (NOM.) INSIDE DIAMETER (I.D.) AASHTO M181,TERMINAL POST ( PULL, END OR CORNER POST) ( MAXIMUM ) 1/4’’ X 3/4’’ FLAT STRETCHER BAR TYPICAL WIRE END CLAMP 2 USE 12 GA. GALVANIZED STEEL OR 9 GAGE ALUMINUM ALLOY 1350-H19 HOG RINGS FOR TENSION WIRE TIES. BRACE BARS SHALL BE: NPS 1-1/4" NOM. I.D. AASHTO M181, 2.27 LBS./FT. OR ASTM F1043 ROLL FORMED (1-1/4" X 1-5/8") 1.35 LBS./FT. FENCES WITH A TENSION WIRE SHALL HAVE EITHER: AN ASTM F552 LINE POST CAP (LOOP TYPE), WITH THE TENSION WIRE PASSING THROUGH THE POST CAP WHEN USING ROUND POSTS; OR USE METHOD SHOWN IN "ALTERNATE ROLL FORMED END OR CORNER POST" DETAIL, IF USING ALTERNATE POSTS. A HOG RING SHALL ATTACH THE TENSION WIRE TO THE FABRIC AND SHALL BE LOCATED NO MORE THAN 6 IN. ON EACH SIDE OF A POST. ADDITIONAL HOG RINGS SHALL BE SPACED A MAXIMUM 18 IN. APART. SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 FOR GATE DETAILS.DESIGNATION: FENCE FABRIC HEIGHT-9322: EXAMPLE: DESIGN 60-93224’ 0’’2’ 6’’6’’ ( TYP.) 10’’ DIA. LINE POSTS SHALL BE: 7’ 6’’ (CONCRETE BASE ONLY) OR 9’-0" LONG NPS 1-1/2’’ NOM. I.D. AASHTO M181, 2.72 LBS./FT. OR ASTM F1043 ROLL FORMED ( 1-5/8’’ X 1-7/8’’ ) 2.40 LBS./FT. MIN. IS USED, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ALTERNATE CONCRETE ANCHORAGE IS WAIVED. STATE DESIGN ENGINEER APPROVED OCTOBER 21, 2008 REVISED 12-10-2008 M.J.E.