Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-01-2020 Planning Commission Packet Planning Commission Meeting December 1, 2020 6:00 p.m. Columbia Heights City Hall 590 40th Avenue NE Columbia Heights, MN 55421 December 1, 2020 Planning Commission Agenda 1. Call to Order and Roll Call 2. Approve Minutes a. Approval of November 4, 2020 Planning Commission meeting minutes. 3. Public Hearing a. Final Plat, Westgate of Columbia Heights Contractors Capital Company LLC SE Corner of Huset Parkway and Jefferson St. b. Conditional Use Permit, Wireless Communication Tower and Fence City of Columbia Heights 3939 Central Ave. 4. Other Business a. Reminder: Planning Commission meeting Tuesday, January 5, 2021, 6:00 p.m. 7. Adjourn MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION November 4, 2020 6:00 PM The meeting was called to order at 6:05 pm by Chair Fiorendino. Commission Members present- Novitsky, Hoium, Kaiser, Vargas, and Fiorendino. Commission Members absent- Schill, Sahnow Also present were, Elizabeth Hammond (City Planner), Christy Bennett (Secretary), and Connie Buesgens (Council Liaison). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion by Hoium, seconded by Novitsky, to approve the minutes from the meeting of September 1, 2020. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. PUBLIC HEARINGS CASE NUMBER: 2020-1101 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: Ivan Barbecho LOCATION: 1329 41st Ave NE (PID 36-30-24-24-0114) REQUEST: Variance to side yard setback and minimum width standard INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION Hammond said that Ivan Barbecho is requesting a Variance for a proposed accessory structure to be located at 1329 41 St Ave NE. The application and narrative are attached for your consideration. The applicant seeks the following: 1. Variance to allow the accessory structure to be 19.95 feet wide. City Code Section 9.106 (C) (1) (m) requires that “Accessory structures shall be no less than 20 by 20 in size” 2. Variance to allow the garage to be within 0 feet from the property line. City code section 9.109 (C) requires that the minimum required setback is 5 feet (based on the R2A district standards). ZONING ORDINANCE Hammond said the property is located in the R2A One and Two Family Residential Zoning District, as are the properties to the east and west and south. Properties to the north are located in the R-2B Built as Duplex District. The use of the property as a residential home complies with the Zoning Code. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Hammond said the Comprehensive Plan guides this area for residential development. The proposed garage is consistent with the goals and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Minutes Page 2 DESIGN GUIDELINES Hammond said this property is not located in a Design Guidelines District. SITE PLAN Hammond said the applicant has submitted a Certificate of Survey and site pictures, illustrating the proposed location of the garage and relation to the adjacent property lines. FINDINGS OF FACT Hammond said the City Council shall make each of the following findings before granting a variance from the provisions of this article: (a) Because of the particular physical surroundings, or the shape, configuration, topography, or other conditions of the specific parcel of land involved, strict adherence to the provisions of this article would cause practical difficulties in conforming to the zoning ordinance. The applicant, however, is proposing to use the property in a reasonable manner not permitted by the zoning ordinance. Hammond said this is correct. The shape of the lot and the existing location of the house, cause a practical difficulty in adhering to provisions of the code. The lot gets narrow as it gets closer to the street. The garage will meet the setback requirement farther north about midway on the east side and at the northeast corner, but in order to have the garage meet the side yard setback on the front southeast corner, it would need to be moved farther back to the north and would not line up with the existing house. The existing driveway actually goes over the property line to the east adjacent to an alleyway easement. This is an existing condition not caused by the current owner, and makes it so that access to the property is confined. There is also a significant grade change as you go north on the property, making it impractical to place the garage farther north on the property. (b) The conditions upon which the variance is based are unique to the specific parcel of land involved and are generally not applicable to other properties within the same zoning classification. Hammond said this is correct. Due to the topography of this lot, the adjacent alleyway easement, and the existing driveway location and the location of the house, the situation is unique to this parcel. (c) The practical difficulties are caused by the provisions of this article and have not been created by any person currently having a legal interest in the property. Hammond said this is correct. (d) The granting of the variance is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. Hammond said this is correct. (e) The granting of the variance will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or materially injurious to the enjoyment, use, development or value of property or improvements in the vicinity. Hammond said this is correct. The granting of the Variance will result in a new two car garage for the property. I received a call from a neighbor expressing support for the Variance, the improvements the current owners Planning Commission Minutes Page 3 have been making, and for the fact that it will provide a new two car garage on the block and improve the value of the neighborhood. In addition to the phone call, I received an email from a neighbor who supports the project (attached). Hammond said that staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council, of the proposed Variances. Member questions for City Staff Fiorendino asked if this is approved, would it still need to go through the normal building permit application process. Hammond said correct. After going through Planning Commission this evening, City Council would review it next, as well. After that, it would go through the administrative approval process with reviews by various Staff members. Hoium asked if notices were sent to everyone. Hammond said that they were sent to everyone that was within 350 feet of the property. Hoium said that the notes say there needs to be a burn rating for anything closer than 5 feet. How much more strict is that than it normally is for a garage? That is really typical if there is a living space. This is part of the building code, rather than the zoning code. The fire wall has to do with the potential, even though that is not the case in this situation, of another structure being within 5 feet. There is a code that says when you are within 5 feet of another structure, or the property line, and it is part of a residential structure, you need that fire wall. Hoium stated it is more than he would put in his garage. Fiorendino said he dealt with this when he put in his new garage, as his building line is right up against his property line. He said they built a normal garage, but the facing the property line had a fire wall. Hammond said that it makes it so that if there is a fire, it’s a lot slower. Hoium said 19.95” is 5/8”. Is the City making him take that 5/8” off the garage of can he make it 20’? Hammond said that it has to be that, because that is where the property line is. It’s not an option to grant a variance that allows him to go over the property line. It may be that he makes it a little narrower, but Staff wanted to allow for him to go right up to the property line given there is the easement there that will not be changed. Hammond said that Staff felt it was a reasonable request, as he is not able to achieve the 20’x20’ two-car garage attached to the home otherwise. Vargas asked what type of liability the property owner would incur and what type of liability does the City have if the water main needs to be maintained/repaired/moved. The crew comes in for maintenance or to fix it and it is 5/8” or 1/2” an inch over the property line and he has a variance, who does it fall on? Hammond said that in this case, it won’t be over the property line. He is requesting to have it up to his property line. Hammond said as far as the liability question, she can’t really address that question. Fiorendino said, so the variance is to have the garage be under the 20’x20’ size required by ordinance, so that it does not go over the property line? Hammond said correct. Vargas said the front of the house appears to have a front door there. Is that a family room or a bedroom there? Hammond said she can’t address that question. It would be a question for the applicant. Vargas said that you can’t have a garage open right into a bedroom. It doesn’t meet code; that is why he was wondering. Vargas said it seems like it would be wiser to have a cantilever and set the garage back, to reduce potential drainage issues that could occur by having a garage with varying peaks next to the home. Vargas said he’s Planning Commission Minutes Page 4 wondering if there was any thought given to shifting the garage to the north. Fiorendino said that this would need to be addressed by the applicant. Vargas said that the water main is minimum 7-8’ deep and if there is a need for any major repairs, the crew could easily be half a foot into the garage trying to dig down to it. He said for any civic project, every easement obtains a temporary easement, to prevent issues with contractors damaging homes. Vargas expressed concern at having a structure right up to the line of the easement, as this allows no spacer for a temporary easement, if it was needed to work on the water main. Hammond said that the City Engineer, the Assistant City Engineer, and the Storm Water Specialist all reviewed this. Hammond said that when she spoke with the Assistant City Engineer, she said they were comfortable with this. Hammond said there is a report attached that provides their approval in general for the project, with the condition that the eaves and that the footing itself needs to be within the property line. This is something that he will have to work out with his architect as he gets into the design. Hammond said the garage might be moved over a little, but she wanted to allow for it to be right up to the line. Vargas and Fiorendino made the point the way the variance is worded, it would not allow for the garage to potentially be smaller than 19.95’, which brings it right up to the property line. Hammond said that the Planning Commission could look at re-wording the variance. Vargas said that with the eaves and cornices or any part of the garage not being able to go over the property line, it might make sense to allow for it to be smaller than 19.95’. Hammond said the wording could be changed to be more general. It could say that it allows the garage to be less than 20’ wide, which would provide flexibility. Hammond said that would probably be the best way to do this. Fiorendino asked if they decided to do a single car garage, would they even need a variance. Hammond said no, and that there was a single car garage there previously that has been removed. Member Questions for Applicant Ivan Barbecho (1329 41st Ave NE) said that he has a door on the side of his house that is ready to open into the garage. He said this door leads to a hallway. Novitsky asked if the doorway is right at the front of the house Barbecho said yes, which is why he is applying for the variance. Otherwise he would move the garage back and have more space. Fiorendino asked so the reason that the garage would be right on the property line is that is the only way to make it work with the existing door opening? Barbecho said yes, that is the reason. Vargas asked if there was no alley way there. Hammond said that there is not an alley and that the easement is there just for the water main. Hammond said that when it was originally platted, there was probably intent to put in an alleyway. Vargas asked if the easement has been used for anything else – utilities, etc. Hammond said no. Novitsky asked if the City has the right to pave that corner of the alleyway; to make that part of his driveway. Hammond said it already is technically. Fiorendino said some of the existing pavement already goes over the easement. Hammond said that was discussed with the engineering department. They don’t have any concerns about it; he obviously needs to access his property. Obviously it would be great if we could correct it, but there isn’t a way to correct it. The City can’t sell him this land, as it is something they need to maintain the water main, so he will always have access to it. Maybe someday the City will have to tear it up, but he will always have access to that. Novitsky asked if the City tears it up, do they have to replace it, since it is already there. Hammond said she can’t address that, but the City probably would, but it would be a pretty minor thing. Hammond said she knows that the City has done so in the past when they have done various Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 improvements in the past that tear up sidewalks or roadways, etc. Hammond said again that she couldn’t say for sure that the City would do that; it would be something for the engineering department to determine. Novitsky commented that there are telephone poles going down that alley that doesn’t exist, too. Vargas said that work safety ultimately comes to the forefront. Any maintenance that is going to need a trench box dropped in by a backhoe, the backhoe needs 15-30’ swing space and it can’t have anything overhead, so anything close to the easement is subject to be in that zone where the backhoe could hit it. Trench collapses kill people at work across this country pretty regularly. Vargas said not taking into consideration the safety of someone that might have to work on that pipe should be brought to the attention of the engineers. Trench collapses happen more often than they should. Swinging trench boxes in that weigh 2 thousand pounds, you can’t really control it. Fiorendino said that is a great point and perhaps Hammond can pass that along. Hammond said absolutely. Fiorendino said, just to repeat, none of the garage may hang over the easement. Public Hearing Open There were no public comments Public Hearing Closed Motion by Hoium, seconded by Novitsky, to waive the reading of the draft resolution attached. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Motion by Hoium, seconded by Novitsky, to recommend that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval the Variances for the proposed garage to be located at 1329 41st Ave NE, subject to certain conditions of approval. 1. The applicant will meet the requirements of the Building Official Report dated, October 23, 2020 and obtain a Building Permit for the project prior to starting construction. 2. The applicant will meet the requirements of the Assistant City Engineer Report dated, October 29, 2020. All ayes. MOTION PASSED. Variance will go before City Council on Monday, November 9th. OTHER BUSINESS Hammond said that the next Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, December 1st at 6pm. The meeting was adjourned with no objection by Fiorendino at 6:29 pm. Respectfully submitted, Christy Bennett Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT CASE NUMBER: 2020-1201 DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Columbia Heights Planning Commission APPLICANT: Contractors Capital Company, LLC DEVELOPMENT: Westgate of Columbia Heights, Assisted Living Facility LOCATION: 35-30-24-43-0125 (unassigned address) known as Huset Park Outlot B REQUEST: Final Plat Approval PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Hammond, City Planner INTRODUCTION Contractors Capital Company has applied for Final Plat Review for Huset Park Outlot B (unassigned address). The site is located south of Huset Park at the corner of Jefferson Street and Huset Parkway. The site when developed will include a total of 29 assisted living units and memory care units. The Site Plan and Preliminary Plat were approved/recommended for approval at the February 4, 2020 Planning Commission Meeting, the applicant is now submitting the Final Plat which needs to be approved prior to construction. ZONING ORDINANCE The site is currently platted as an Outlot from the adjacent townhomes. As part of this application, the subject site being platted to “Westgate of Columbia Heights”. The property owner will be dedicating land back to the City to accommodate for the right of way (where the roundabout is located). The applicant will also be dedicating full perimeter easements for drainage and utility. Once the Final Plat is approved, a new address will be issued for the property. The property is located in the Mixed Use Zoning District, along with the properties to the south and west. Properties to the north are located in the Public and Open Space District, and the properties to the east are located in the Light Industrial District. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Comprehensive Plan guides this area for high density residential development. The Comprehensive Plan aims to ensure housing for the projected aging population is accommodated throughout the City. Constructing a senior living community designed for aging in place, with graduated care options is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 1, 2020 Planning Report Page 2 FINAL PLAT 1. Easement Dedication The proposed plat will include a fifteen foot drainage and utility easement on the north side of the property and the remaining sides around the perimeter of the property will include a five foot drainage and utility easement. There is an easement over the drainage system under the parking lot. 2. Right-of-Way Dedication According to the survey that was submitted with the application, a portion of the site protrudes into Jefferson Street NE and the roundabout. The applicants have proposed to reconfigure the property lines to eliminate this issue. 3. Park Dedication The proposed plat will not include a land dedication. Rather, the applicants will make a financial contribution to satisfy this requirement. This will be secured in the development contract. FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines two conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Final Plat, they are as follows: (a) The final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat. This is correct. (b) The final plat conforms to the requirements of Section 9.116 [Subdivision Ordinance]. This is correct. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat as presented subject to the conditions outline below: Motion: Move to waive the reading of Resolution No 2020-_____, there being ample copies available to the public. Motion: Motion to recommend that the City Council approve the Final Plat as presented, subject to the following conditions: 1. An approved Final Plat shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of the City Council approval and must be recorded within that timeframe. In the event that a Final Plat is not recorded within this time period, the Plat will become void. 2. The property owner and the City shall enter into Development Contract governing site improvements and shall be executed by the property owner and the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 1, 2020 Planning Report Page 3 3. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder’s Office. 4. The applicant shall provide documentation for an easement dedication over the drainage system in the parking lot area. Said documentation shall be provided upon completion of the project. 5. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 6. Developer shall pay park dedication fees as outlined in the Development Contract. 7. Developer will provide record plans or as-built drawings to the City following project completion. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020-____ Application Narrative Preliminary Plat Final Plat RESOLUTION NO. 2020-_____ A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Final Plat for Contractor Capital Company, LLC. Whereas, a proposal (Case # 2020-1201) has been submitted by Contractors Capital Company, LLC to the City Council requesting Final Plat Approval from the City of Columbia Heights at the following site: ADDRESS: 35-30-24-43-0125 (unassigned address) known as remnant parcel LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Outlot B, Huset Park, Anoka County, Minnesota THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Final Plat Approval per Code Section 9.104 (M) Whereas, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on December 1, 2020; Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed Final Plat upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT Section 9.104 (M) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines conditions that must be met in order for the City to grant a Final Plat. They are as follows: (a) The final plat substantially conforms to the approved preliminary plat. (b) The final plat conforms with the requirements of Section 9.116. Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this Final Plat; and in granting approval the City and the applicant agree that the Plat shall become null and void if not recorded with Anoka County within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal. CONDITIONS 1. An approved Final Plat shall be valid for a period of one (1) year from the date of the City Council approval and must be recorded within that timeframe. In the event that a Final Plat is not recorded within this time period, the Plat will become void. 2. The property owner and the City shall enter into Development Contract governing site improvements and shall be executed by the property owner and the City prior to the issuance of a building permit. City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2 3. The applicant shall be responsible for the cost of filing and recording written easements with the Anoka County Recorder’s Office. 4. The applicant shall provide documentation for an easement dedication over the drainage system in the parking lot area. Said documentation shall be provided upon completion of the project. 5. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. 6. Developer shall pay park dedication fees as outlined in the Development Contract. 7. Developer will provide record plans or as-built drawings to the City following project completion. ORDER OF COUNCIL Passed this 14th day of December, 2020 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Donna Schmitt, Mayor Attest: Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Council Secretary CITY OF COLUMBIA HEIGHTS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PLANNING REPORT 3939 Central Ave NE CASE NUMBER: 2020-1202 DATE: December 1, 2020 TO: Planning Commission APPLICANT: SEH/City of Columbia Heights DEVELOPMENT: New Wireless Communication Tower and Fence LOCATION: 3939 Central Avenue NE REQUEST: Conditional Use Permits PREPARED BY: Elizabeth Hammond/Aaron Chirpich INTRODUCTION SEH on behalf of the City of Columbia Heights has requested a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to construct a wireless communication tower and a CUP to construct a fence surrounding the tower, at the property located at 3939 Central Ave NE. The tower and fence will be installed behind the library on the southeast corner of the property adjacent to and north of 39th Ave. Plans have been submitted illustrating the proposed location and specifications of the tower and fence design. The new tower is being constructed to relocate cell antennas that were on top of the roof at the former bank building at 3989 Central Avenue. As part of the redevelopment of that site, the City has agreed to construct the new tower. The primary tenant in top position on the new tower will be AT&T. The tower is being designed to hold up to three additional carriers for a total of four. The additional carriers have not been identified at this time. The Planning Commission must hold a public hearing and make a recommendation to the City Council on the CUP’s. The following analysis is provided for your consideration. ZONING ORDINANCE The Zoning Ordinance has specific requirements for the installation of a new wireless communication tower, and staff has reviewed the requirements to confirm that the proposed tower achieves those standards. • The tower will be 180 feet in height. The Zoning Code allows towers exceeding 80 ft. in height to be located in the Central Business District with a Conditional Use Permit. • The fence is 60 ft. by 60 ft. in size, 8 ft. in height and will surround the perimeter of the tower. The Zoning Code allows non-residential fences up to 8 ft. in height without the necessity for a land use variance. However, fences over 6 ft. in height require a CUP. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 1, 2020 Planning Report Page 2 • The tower will be a monopole design limiting the overall footprint, with four levels of antennae brackets on the top allowing for four tenants. In order to limit the number of towers in the City and foster shared use of the towers, the Zoning Code requires that all new wireless communications towers be constructed with excess capacity for co- location, based on the height of the tower. In this case, due to the height of the proposed tower, the code requires that the tower allow for up to three additional users (communication providers). • The tower is designed to fold onto itself completely. • The tower meets the setback requirement to the nearest lot line. The code requires that the tower (if a collapsible design) must be a distance equal to 20% of the tower height away from the nearest lot line. The tower height is 180 feet in height, and 20% of the height is 36 feet. The tower will be 57 feet from the south lot line (nearest lot line), achieving the setback requirement. • The zoning code requires a visual impact analysis to be required as part of the application submittal for any tower over 80 ft. in height. There are photos attached taken from various distances around the city illustrating the towers visual impact. • The Zoning code requires that the new tower meet separation requirements from existing towers. The distance that is required to be achieved is determined by the height of the existing and proposed tower. In this case, both the new and existing tower exceed 151 ft. and per the code, the new tower must be a minimum of 1,000 ft. from the existing tower. The nearest existing tower is 1, 600 ft. from the new tower achieving this requirement. FINDINGS OF FACT The City Council shall make each of the following findings before granting a conditional use permit: (a) The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator. The Zoning code specifically allows towers exceeding 80 ft. in height to be located in the Central Business District upon approval of a CUP. The Zoning code specifically requires that fences greater than 6 ft. in height require a CUP. Because this is a non- residential fence and used for a use in a commercially zoned property the fence can be up to 8 feet without the need for a variance. (b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the comprehensive plan. This is correct. (c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. This is correct. Staff does not anticipate there to be any hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties due to the tower and fence construction. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 1, 2020 Planning Report Page 3 (d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity. This is correct. (e) The use will be designed, constructed, operated and maintained in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area. This is correct. The area surrounding the tower will be surrounded with a fence and landscaping buffer minimizing the visual impact to the best extent possible. (f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. This is correct. (f) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic. This is correct. Staff does not anticipate there to be any effect on the traffic to local surrounding public streets or on site circulation of traffic. (g) The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity. This is correct. Other than a minimal visual impact, the tower will not have a negative effect on the other uses in the area. (h) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the district in which it is located. This is correct. Applicable regulations are achieved. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for the Wireless Communication Tower and the 8 ft. tall fence surrounding the tower, subject to certain conditions of approval. 1. The area surrounding the tower/fence shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the tower compound from surrounding property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip 10 feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. Existing mature growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 2. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. City of Columbia Heights Planning Commission December 1, 2020 Planning Report Page 4 ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 2020- Applications Narrative Geotechnical Evaluation Summary Photos Site Plans 3939 Central Ave NE RESOLUTION NO. ______ A resolution of the City Council for the City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota, approving a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication tower and fence 8 feet in height for the property located at 3939 Central Ave NE. (PID 36-30-24-33-0158) Whereas, a proposal (case 2020-1202) has been submitted by SEH on behalf of the City of Columbia Heights, requesting a Conditional Use Permit for a wireless communication tower and a fence to be 8 feet in height at the following site: ADDRESS: 3939 Central Ave NE. PID 36-30-24-33-0158 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: On file at City Hall THE APPLICANT SEEKS THE FOLLOWING: Conditional Use Permits Whereas, the Planning Commission held a public hearing as required by the City Zoning Code on December 1, 2020; Whereas, the City Council has considered the advice and recommendations of the Planning Commission regarding the effect of the proposed Conditional Use Permits upon the health, safety, and welfare of the community and its Comprehensive Plan, as well as any concerns related to compatibility of uses, traffic, property values, light, air, danger of fire, and risk to public safety in the surrounding areas; Now, therefore, in accordance with the foregoing, and all ordinances and regulations of the City of Columbia Heights, the City Council of the City of Columbia Heights makes the following: FINDINGS OF FACT (a) The use is one of the conditional uses listed for the zoning district in which the property is located, or is a substantially similar use as determined by the Zoning Administrator. (b) The use is in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Comprehensive Plan. (c) The use will not impose hazards or disturbing influences on neighboring properties. (d) The use will not substantially diminish the use of the property in the immediate vicinity. (e) The use will be designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner that is compatible with the appearance of the existing or intended character of the surrounding area. (f) The use and property upon which the use is located are adequately served by essential public facilities and services. (g) Adequate measures have been or will be taken to minimize traffic congestion on the public streets and to provide for appropriate on-site circulation of traffic. (h) The use will not cause a negative cumulative effect, when considered in conjunction with the cumulative effect of other uses in the immediate vicinity. City of Columbia Heights - Council Resolution Page 2 (i) The use complies with all other applicable regulations for the districts in which it is located. Further, be it resolved, that the attached plans, maps, and other information shall become part of this Conditional Use Permit approval; and in granting this Conditional Use Permit approval, the City and the applicant agree that this permit shall become null and void if the project has not been completed within one (1) calendar year after the approval date, subject to petition for renewal of the permit. This approval is subject to certain conditions that have been found to be necessary to protect the public interest and ensure compliance with the provisions of the Zoning and Development Ordinance, including: CONDITIONS 1. The area surrounding the tower/fence shall be landscaped with a buffer of plant materials that effectively screens the view of the tower compound from surrounding property. The standard buffer shall consist of a landscaped strip 10 feet wide outside the perimeter of the compound. Existing mature growth and natural land forms on the site shall be preserved to the maximum extent possible. 2. All required state and local codes, permits, licenses and inspections will be met and in full compliance. ORDER OF COUNCIL Passed this _________ day of ______________________, 2020 Offered by: Seconded by: Roll Call: Donna Schmitt, Mayor Attest: Nicole Tingley, City Clerk/Council Secretary Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 1701 West Knapp Street, Suite B, Rice Lake, WI 54868-1350 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 715.236.4000 | 800.903.6970 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: City of Columbia Heights FROM: Dale Romsos DATE: November 3, 2020 RE: 3939 Central Ave Mono Pole CUP Application Request SEH No. COLHT 157649 14.00 On behalf of the City of Columbia Heights, Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH®) is seeking a Conditional Use Permit for the installation of a 180’ communication mono pole and 60’x60’ multi-tenant compound at 3939 Central Ave. This site will be used to assist in the relocation of wireless cellular carriers recently displaced from a nearby structure that was removed. The mono pole being used is a multi-facetted, tapered, galvanized steel pole with four levels of antennae brackets. The use of a mono pole is favored by many municipalities, as its foundation provides a small ground footprint, while being able to reach up to 200’ with minimal ground space and visual impact. The galvanized structure also provides an extremely long life cycle with little to no maintenance. A visual impact has been provided with tower simulation photos provided at five distances from the proposed tower location. It should be noted that due to the terrain, trees, and residential street layout to the east of the proposed tower location, the simulated tower could only be seen at a close distance. Our report has distances from 400’ to almost 4000’ from which to reference. As the impact photos will show, at a distance the tower will blend in similar structures like power and light poles. Construction of the mono pole will include:  Engineering for a 50% break design so the pole will only fold onto itself.  180’ height design.  Class III structure class (highest design rating).  Current engineering specifications (ANSI/TIA-222-G). Note: As of this date, Minnesota has not recognized Revision H of this engineering specification.  Engineered for four levels of wireless telecommunication tenants. Note: Compound is designed for four tenants. No variance is being requested, as the design and engineering specifications fall within the City of Columbia Heights ordinances for a new communication tower as noted:  Section (13) subsection b); paragraph (iii). Nearest tower (38th &Jefferson) is 1600’ from the proposed location.  Section (13) subsection (a); paragraph (i). The engineered specification of 50% break allows for 20% of tower height to be used for set back from proposed tower location to the nearest lot line (=36’). SEH is requesting approval for the Conditional Use Permit application for the installation of a180’ communication mono pole and 60’x60’ multi-tenant compound at 3939 Central Ave. as detailed above. We believe we have met all requirements set forth by City ordinances and zoning. If you have questions or concerns, please contact Dale Romsos at 612.325.9995. X:\AE\C\COLHT\157649\Telecom\Monopole\Carrier- Upgrade Type\Correspondence\Letters\City of Columbia Heights CUP Memorandum.docx Engineers | Architects | Planners | Scientists Short Elliott Hendrickson Inc., 3535 Vadnais Center Drive, St. Paul, MN 55110-3507 SEH is 100% employee-owned | sehinc.com | 651.490.2000 | 800.325.2055 | 888.908.8166 fax MEMORANDUM TO: Dale Romsos - SEH FROM: Luke Thompson, PE (Lic. MN, VA, WY) DATE: November 5, 2020 RE: Geotechnical Evaluation for Tower Construction City of Columbia Heights, Minnesota SEH No. COLHT 157649 14.00 The City of Columbia Heights is proposing to construct a tower for up to four communication carriers. SEH has been requested to prepare design documents and recommendations for the layout and preparation of project plans. In effort to aid the design documentation, SEH geotechnical engineers were requested to provide preliminary engineering evaluation and provide foundation criteria of the site soils and recommendations to aid the tower designer. It is our understanding that the proposed tower will be approximately 180 feet tall and be supported by either a mat spread foundation or a drilled concrete shaft. The following information summarizes our results of the evaluation. AVAILABLE DATA We were provided a geotechnical data report dated September 21, 2020, consisting of five soil borings performed by Braun Intertec. The City provided general tower information and a site layout containing a concept for a future development including additional parking space to the north of the proposed tower location. SITE CONDITIONS The proposed location lies in the southeast corner of a vacant area on the library property to the north of 39th Avenue NE and east of Central Ave. Memorandum November 5, 2020 Page 2 It is our understanding the preferred tower location is at the ST-3 location. The driveway access to the library, shown on the soil boring layout above lies approximately 4 to 5 feet above the proposed site. The site slopes down and sits in a depression and slopes back up towards 39th Avenue and to the east towards the lot line. The area is open with mature trees bordering the site on the east and south ends. SOIL CONDITIONS Site soils encountered by the five soil borings contained variable depths of fill soils ranging from 4.5 feet to 19 feet below the surface. Fill soils consist of silty sand with roots and rock fragments. Underlying glacial outwash consist of silty sand and sandy lean clay. Soil boring ST-3 encountered very stiff sandy lean clay from 4.5 feet to 14.5 feet below the surface. Soils transitioned from the silty sand and sandy lean clay to very dense poorly graded sand to dense clayey sand. Soil borings ST-1 to ST-4 were terminated at 21 feet below grade. Soil boring ST-5 was drilled to 51 feet below grade. In general, the encountered granular material was considered medium dense to very dense. Ground water was not encountered in any of the soil borings. PRELIMINARY EVALUATION After reviewing the available data and site layout, SEH geotechnical engineers determined soil parameters to aid in the tower designer for the proposed tower foundation. We anticipate either a spread mat foundation or a drilled concrete shaft foundation will be used. For the design of the spread footing, an allowable net bearing pressure of 4000 psf may be used for the sizing of the footing at elevation 945 at the location of ST-3. This places the footing in very stiff clay. A coefficient of friction of 0.32 can be used for the soil between the concrete spread footing and the underlying clay to evaluate sliding resistance at the base. However, adjacent soil boring ST-2 encountered fill soils to 19 feet below the surface. It is unclear where the transition between competent native material and the fill soils lies horizontally from the ST-3 soil boring. If a spread footing is used, fill soils will need to be removed and replaced with compacted, engineered fill in order to design with the recommended allowable net bearing pressure of 4,000 psf. Therefore, we recommend caution to the designer if soils are not consistent throughout the base of the proposed spread footing and competent at a 1:1 laterally and downward of the foundation edge. Replacement fill should consist of Select Granular Borrow meeting MnDOT 3149 and be compacted in loose lifts not exceeding one foot in thickness to 100 percent of Standard Proctor maximum dry unit weight. It is for that reason, we anticipate that a single drilled shaft will be constructed as the foundation for the proposed tower. The soil borings were analyzed for the soil conditions and parameters. Due to the termination depth of ST-3 of 21 feet below the surface (elevation 929.2), we interpolated results of adjacent soil boring ST-5, which terminated at 51 feet fellow the surface (elevation 905.7 feet). For our analyses, we assumed a drilled shaft diameter of 5 feet. Allowable end bearing pressure values are based on a factor of safety of 3 from the ultimate pressures for the 2.5-inch settlement results. An additional reduction based on the proposed footing diameter was used to determine the end bearing pressure with anticipated 1-inch settlement. The allowable side resistance pressures were also determined with a factor of safety of 3 from the ultimate pressures. It is recommended to use zero friction in the top five feet of soil-shaft interaction in uplift and for a length at the base equal to the diameter of the shaft in compression. We recommend the base of the shaft be installed deeper than elevation 935.7 feet (14.5 feet below the surface), which is the bottom of the clay layer encountered at the ST-3 location. Memorandum November 5, 2020 Page 3 Below are the parameters that may be used for allowable end bearing and side resistance as well soil parameters for lateral analysis of the monopole. Summary of Soil Parameters Boring No Depth (ft) Allowable End Bearing (2.5 inch settlement) (psf) Allowable End Bearing (1 inch settlement) (psf) Allowable Side Resistance (psf) ST-3 5 to 10 - - 367 ST-3 10 to 15 - - 367 ST-3 15 to 20 10000 8333 575 ST-3 20 to 25 8800 7333 682 ST-3/5 25 to 30 8400 7000 795 ST-3/5 30 to 35 11200 9333 881 ST-3/5 35 to 40 13200 11000 952 ST-3/5 40 to 45 14800 12333 1006 Soil Parameters for Monopole Lateral Analysis Boring No. Depth (ft) ɣ (pcf) Cu (psf) ɸ (degrees) K (pci) ε50 ST-3 0 to 5 na na na na na ST-3 5 to 14.5 120 2000 na 20 0.005 ST-3 14.5 to 16 131 na 39 90 na ST-3 16 to 23 118 na 34 90 na ST-3/5 23 to 40 126 na 35 225 na ST-3/5 40 to 45 128 na 38 225 na ɣ = design unit weight of soil (pounds per cubic foot). C u = undrained shear strength (pounds per square foot). ɸ = angle of internal friction k = coefficient of lateral subgrade reaction (pounds per cubic inch) required for p-y curve method of analysis. ε 50 = axial strain of soil corresponding to one-half of the maximum principal stress difference. na = not applicable CONCLUSIONS Based on the information provided to us and on general loading information from other towers of similar or greater size, we consider the soils at this site suitable for founding the proposed tower either on a shallow spread footing or a drilled shaft. Predominantly, the soils range from medium dense to very dense glacial outwash sand and very stiff sandy lean clay. Calculations for uplift and overturning are not provided in this report, rather general recommendations and soil parameters that can be used for foundation design are provided for use by the tower supplier/contractor. dmk x:\ae\c\colht\157649\4-prelim-dsgn-rpts\43-prelim-dsgn\45-geotech-rpt\prelim eng rep\geo eval tower construction.docx CE N T R A L A V E . N E GOULD AVE. NE 40TH AVE. NE 39TH AVE. NE RES E R V O I R B L V D . Know what's below. before you dig.Call R CO L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E MA R K RE V I S I O N S DR A W N B Y : H R C DE S I G N E D B Y : C E S IS S U E D A T E PR O J E C T N O . SE H F I L E N O . RE G I S T R A T I O N N O . DA T E I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , OR R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T SU P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E ST A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . SHEET 35 3 5 V A D N A I S C E N T E R D R PH O N E : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 0 0 0 WA T T S : 8 0 0 . 3 2 5 . 2 0 5 5 TE L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N T O W E R CO L O M B I A H E I G H T S , M I N N E S O T A ST P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 0 FA X : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 1 5 0 XX . X X . 2 0 2 0 ww w . s e h i n c . c o m 39 3 9 C E N T R A L A V E N U E M O N O P O L E 10 . 1 9 . 2 0 2 0 DR A W N B Y : DE S I G N E D B Y : 40 9 1 3 CH A D E . S E T T E R H O L M , P . E . x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x G G G G G G G G G G G TV - B U R TV - B U R TV - B U R TV - B U R T V - B U R G G G G ST S ST > > I I I I I I COLOMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY COLOMBIA HEIGHTS RENTAL CO L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E MA R K RE V I S I O N S DR A W N B Y : H R C DE S I G N E D B Y : C E S IS S U E D A T E PR O J E C T N O . SE H F I L E N O . RE G I S T R A T I O N N O . DA T E I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , OR R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T SU P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E ST A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . SHEET 35 3 5 V A D N A I S C E N T E R D R PH O N E : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 0 0 0 WA T T S : 8 0 0 . 3 2 5 . 2 0 5 5 TE L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N T O W E R CO L O M B I A H E I G H T S , M I N N E S O T A ST P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 0 FA X : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 1 5 0 XX . X X . 2 0 2 0 ww w . s e h i n c . c o m 39 3 9 C E N T R A L A V E N U E M O N O P O L E 10 . 1 9 . 2 0 2 0 DR A W N B Y : DE S I G N E D B Y : 40 9 1 3 CH A D E . S E T T E R H O L M , P . E . 0 feetscale 20 4020 10 C1 EX I S T I N G C O N D I T I O N S SH E E T T I T L E X: \ A E \ C \ C O L H T \ 1 5 7 6 4 9 \ 5 - f i n a l - d s g n \ 5 1 - d r a w i n g s \ 1 0 - C i v i l \ c a d \ d w g \ s h e e t \ C O L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 C O N D . d w g 11 / 5 / 2 0 2 0 6 : 1 2 P M hc u n n i n g h a m x x x x x x x x x x G G G G G GG TV - B U R TV - B U R T V - B U R G G G G E ST S ST > I I I I FUTURE PARKING LOT COLOMBIA HEIGHTS PUBLIC LIBRARY COLOMBIA HEIGHTS RENTAL LEGEND 12" -100% CLASS 5 CRUSHED LIMESTONE ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SILT FENCE & BIO ROLL CLEAR & GRUB TREE LINE CO L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E MA R K RE V I S I O N S DR A W N B Y : H R C DE S I G N E D B Y : C E S IS S U E D A T E PR O J E C T N O . SE H F I L E N O . RE G I S T R A T I O N N O . DA T E I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , OR R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T SU P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E ST A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . SHEET 35 3 5 V A D N A I S C E N T E R D R PH O N E : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 0 0 0 WA T T S : 8 0 0 . 3 2 5 . 2 0 5 5 TE L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N T O W E R CO L O M B I A H E I G H T S , M I N N E S O T A ST P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 0 FA X : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 1 5 0 XX . X X . 2 0 2 0 ww w . s e h i n c . c o m 39 3 9 C E N T R A L A V E N U E M O N O P O L E 10 . 1 9 . 2 0 2 0 DR A W N B Y : DE S I G N E D B Y : 40 9 1 3 CH A D E . S E T T E R H O L M , P . E . 0 feetscale 30 6030 15 C2 SI T E P L A N SH E E T T I T L E X: \ A E \ C \ C O L H T \ 1 5 7 6 4 9 \ 5 - f i n a l - d s g n \ 5 1 - d r a w i n g s \ 1 0 - C i v i l \ c a d \ d w g \ s h e e t \ C O L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 R E M . d w g 11 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 3 1 P M hc u n n i n g h a m NOTES: CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP.) EXISTING PARKING LOT REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVE (BY OTHERS) TEMPORARY COMMUNICATION POLE AND FENCE REMOVED BY OTHERS 12:1 12" CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONECOMPACTED SUB-GRADE 12' MIN 2.00% NTS 12:1 1'1' 1:1(TYP) COMMUNICATION TOWER ACCESS ROAD TYPICAL SECTION NTS FINISH GRADE 8-4"SCH. 40 PVC CONDUITS 36"MIN. BACKFILL W/ GRANULAR BEDDING (MNDOT 3149 F) CONDUIT TRENCH (8 BANK) 6" TOPSOIL (MIN.) 60' 60' 12' GRAVEL DRIVE (SEE DETAIL) 100' X 100' ANTENNA LEASE AREA 60' X 60' FENCED ENCLOSURE 12' WIDE SWING GATE, SEE SHEET C4 FOR DETAIL PROPOSED MONOPOLE LOCATION N=101157.530 E=505417.808 SEE SHEET C4 FOR MONOPOLE PROFILE SILT FENCE AND BIO ROLL XC XC XCXC XC XCXC XC x x x xxx x x x x x xx x x x x x x x x x x G G G G G G G G G G G G G G XC XC XCXC XC XC XC XC G G G G G TV - B U R TV - B U R TV - B U R TV - B U R TV - B U R TV - B U R T V - B U R T V - B U R TV-B U R G E > I I I XC XC XCXC XC XC XC XC 20' 42' 64' 57' 124' TO WEST PROPERTY LINE 180' TO WEST PROPERTY LINE NOTES: LEGEND 12" -100% CLASS 5 CRUSHED LIMESTONE ACCESS ROAD CONSTRUCTION LIMITS SILT FENCE & BIO ROLL CLEAR & GRUB TREE LINE CO L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E MA R K RE V I S I O N S DR A W N B Y : H R C DE S I G N E D B Y : C E S IS S U E D A T E PR O J E C T N O . SE H F I L E N O . RE G I S T R A T I O N N O . DA T E I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , OR R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T SU P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E ST A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . SHEET 35 3 5 V A D N A I S C E N T E R D R PH O N E : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 0 0 0 WA T T S : 8 0 0 . 3 2 5 . 2 0 5 5 TE L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N T O W E R CO L O M B I A H E I G H T S , M I N N E S O T A ST P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 0 FA X : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 1 5 0 XX . X X . 2 0 2 0 ww w . s e h i n c . c o m 39 3 9 C E N T R A L A V E N U E M O N O P O L E 10 . 1 9 . 2 0 2 0 DR A W N B Y : DE S I G N E D B Y : 40 9 1 3 CH A D E . S E T T E R H O L M , P . E . 0 feetscale 10 2010 5 C3 SI T E P L A N D E T A I L S SH E E T T I T L E X: \ A E \ C \ C O L H T \ 1 5 7 6 4 9 \ 5 - f i n a l - d s g n \ 5 1 - d r a w i n g s \ 1 0 - C i v i l \ c a d \ d w g \ s h e e t \ C O L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 S I T E . d w g 11 / 1 9 / 2 0 2 0 1 2 : 1 6 P M hc u n n i n g h a m CONSTRUCTION LIMITS (TYP.) REMOVE BITUMINOUS DRIVE (BY OTHERS) TEMPORARY COMMUNICATION POLE AND FENCE REMOVED BY OTHERS 12:1 12" CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONECOMPACTED SUB-GRADE 12' MIN 2.00% NTS 12:1 1'1' 1:1(TYP) COMMUNICATION TOWER ACCESS ROAD TYPICAL SECTION NTS FINISH GRADE 8-4"SCH. 40 PVC CONDUITS 36"MIN. BACKFILL W/ GRANULAR BEDDING (MNDOT 3149 F) CONDUIT TRENCH (8 BANK) 6" TOPSOIL (MIN.) 60' 60' 12' GRAVEL DRIVE (SEE DETAIL 100' X 100' ANTENNA LEASE AREA 60' X 60' FENCED ENCLOSURE 8' HIGH CHAIN LINK FENCE, SEE SHEET C4 FOR DETAIL 12' WIDE SWING GATE, SEE SHEET C4 FOR DETAIL PROPOSED MONOPOLE LOCATION N=101157.530 E=505417.808 SEE SHEET C4 FOR MONOPOLE PROFILE (1) 4 GANG 200 AMP SOCKET TO BE PROVIDED BY OTHERS HANDHOLE FOR (8) - 4" CONDUITS (FUTURE COMMUNICATION FIBER) 1 2 3 4 5 6 987 ACCESS EASEMENT SILT FENCE AND BIO ROLL 24:1 6" CLASS 5, 100% CRUSHED LIMESTONECOMPACTED SUB-GRADE 60' NTS 24:1 COMMUNICATION TOWER TYPICAL SECTION WEED BARRIER MATT TRANSFORMER 50KVA TO BE INSTALLED BY POWER COMPANY CO L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 DE S C R I P T I O N DA T E MA R K RE V I S I O N S DR A W N B Y : H R C DE S I G N E D B Y : C E S IS S U E D A T E PR O J E C T N O . SE H F I L E N O . RE G I S T R A T I O N N O . DA T E I H E R E B Y C E R T I F Y T H A T T H I S P L A N , S P E C I F I C A T I O N , OR R E P O R T W A S P R E P A R E D B Y M E O R U N D E R M Y D I R E C T SU P E R V I S I O N A N D T H A T I A M A D U L Y L I C E N S E D PR O F E S S I O N A L E N G I N E E R U N D E R T H E L A W S O F T H E ST A T E O F M I N N E S O T A . SHEET 35 3 5 V A D N A I S C E N T E R D R PH O N E : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 0 0 0 WA T T S : 8 0 0 . 3 2 5 . 2 0 5 5 TE L E C O M M U N I C A T I O N T O W E R CO L O M B I A H E I G H T S , M I N N E S O T A ST P A U L , M N 5 5 1 1 0 FA X : 6 5 1 . 4 9 0 . 2 1 5 0 XX . X X . 2 0 2 0 ww w . s e h i n c . c o m 39 3 9 C E N T R A L A V E N U E M O N O P O L E 10 . 1 9 . 2 0 2 0 DR A W N B Y : DE S I G N E D B Y : 40 9 1 3 CH A D E . S E T T E R H O L M , P . E . 3" . Line Post* (INTERMEDIATE) Brace Post No. 7 TENSION WIRE CHAIN LINK FENCE TRUSS ROD WITH ADJUSTMENT Terminal Post (END, CORNER OR PULL) 3' - 4 " 8' 2/ 3 F A B R I C H E I G H T (O R A S D I R E C T E D ) 10'-0" TYP. BRACE BAR. CONNECT TO POSTS WITH BRACE BAND W/CUP. TRUSS ROD PULL, END OR CORNER & ADJACENT LINE POST 8' 3" 3' - 1 " 12" DIA HORIZONTAL BRACE (TYPICAL) 10'.0" CENTER TO CENTER 6" 3' - 4 " 16" DIA 3' - 1 " 6"3" 16" DIA12" DIA *IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED WHEN SETTING LINE POSTS, DRILL HOLES 4 INCHES LARGER IN DIAMETER THAN POSTS AND BACKFILL TO GRADE WITH CLASS "B" CONCRETE TOP RAIL (TYP.) 3' - 4 " 6" 2' DIA 3' - 4 " 6" 16" DIA TRUSS ROD WITH ADJUSTMENT HORIZONTAL BRACE AS SHOWN ON SITE PLANS ACCESS ROAD GATE OPENING SEE NOTE, THIS DETAIL NOTE: PROVIDE LATCHING DEVICES TO HOLD GATES IN OPEN POSITION, TYP. GATE POST CONCRETE CONCRETE CONCRETE ACCESS ROAD GATE 6'-0" TYP.6'-0" TYP. 1.PROVIDE LATCHING DEVICES TO HOLD GATES IN OPEN POSITION. 2.IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED WHEN SETTING LINE POSTS, DRILL HOLES 4 INCHES LARGER IN DIAMETER THAN POSTS & BACKFILL TO GRADE WITH CLASS "B" CONCRETE. 3.8' BLACK VINYL COATED ARCHITECTURAL GRADE FENCING PER SPECIFICATIONS. 4.TOP RAIL SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL FENCING & GATES. TOP RAIL (TYP.) TOP RAIL (TYP.) GROUND SURFACE NTS NTS NTS COMMUNICATION MONOPOLE DETAIL NTS C4 SH E E T T I T L E FE N C I N G A N D M O N O P O L E DE T A I L X: \ A E \ C \ C O L H T \ 1 5 7 6 4 9 \ 5 - f i n a l - d s g n \ 5 1 - d r a w i n g s \ 1 0 - C i v i l \ c a d \ d w g \ s h e e t \ C O L H T 1 5 7 6 4 9 D T . d w g 10 / 2 8 / 2 0 2 0 4 : 0 0 P M hc u n n i n g h a m