The URL can be used to link to this page

ITEM 7.1 Capstone HomesO OtSegTYF o MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT INFORMATION Request for City Council Action ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT REQUESTOR: MEETING DATE: Planning City Planner Licht 14 January 2019 PRESENTER(s) REVIEWED BY: ITEM #: City Planner Licht City Administrator/Finance Director Flaherty 7.1— Capstone Homes City Attorney MacArthur STRATEGIC VISION MEETS: THE CITY OF OTSEGO: recommended by the Planning Commission. Is a strong organization that is committed to leading the community through innovative communication. IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED? Has proactively expanded infrastructure to responsibly provide core services. X Is committed to delivery of quality emergency service responsive to community needs and expectations in a cost-effective manner. Closed 17 December 2018 Is a social community with diverse housing, service options, and employment opportunities. Capstone Homes, Inc. (d/b/a Capstone Harvest Run, LLC) has received preliminary plat and PUD -CUP Is a distinctive, connected community known for its beauty and natural surroundings. AGENDA ITEM DETAILS RECOMMENDATION: City staff recommends the City Council deny a Zoning Ordinance amendment based on findings of fact as recommended by the Planning Commission. ARE YOU SEEKING APPROVAL OF A CONTRACT? IS A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIRED? No Opened 3 December 2018, Closed 17 December 2018 BACKGROUND/J USTI FI CATI O N: Capstone Homes, Inc. (d/b/a Capstone Harvest Run, LLC) has received preliminary plat and PUD -CUP approval for Harvest Run. Harvest Run is located east of Queens Avenue at 61St Street (adjacent to Watertower #3). The development incudes 61 single family dwellings to be constructed as slab -on -grade foundations without basements. Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any slab -on - grade dwelling constructed within a preliminary plat approved after 26 September 2016 include a storm shelter. The developer in their due diligence for the project did not identify the storm shelter requirement within the Zoning Ordinance (including not being advised of the requirement by City staff prior to application for a building permit). The developer is seeking an exception from the storm shelter requirement for Harvest Run (and for a potential future development for land under contract adjacent to Harvest Run). City staff has indicated the only option for relief from the current storm shelter requirement would be to apply for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to repeal or modify the existing provision, which would apply to all future slab -on - grade dwellings. The developer submitted an application requesting that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide that the storm shelter be required to be offered to buyers as an option or repeal the requirement. The Planning Commissioned opened a public hearing on 3 December 2018, which was continued to 17 December 2018. Mr. Steven Bona of Capstone Homes, LLC was present as the applicant and made a presentation to the Planning Commission. There were no comments from the public. The Planning Commission engaged in a discussion with Mr. Bona and draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached for reference. The public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission voted 6-0 to recommend the Zoning Ordinance amendment application be denied based on findings of fact drafted by City staff. City staff has had subsequent conversations with the developer regarding the storm shelter requirement and potential options. City staff reiterates that the requirement is a legitimate exercise of the City's authority under the Zoning Ordinance. City staff has also reiterated that any modification to the storm shelter requirement must be first enforceable and second implemented consistently for all slab -on -grade dwellings. Following a meeting with City staff on 9 January 2019, the developer submitted a letter requesting the City Council consider modifying the storm shelter requirement to be constructed or installed within an expanded attached garage rather than the interior of the dwelling unit. The Planning Commission has not had an opportunity to consider modifying the storm shelter requirement to allow installation within an expanded garage, which would constitute a new request. The developer may choose to withdraw the current request to have the Planning Commission consider the garage installation option at a second public hearing. SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS ATTACHED: Planning Report dated 13 December 2018 o Developer's narrative o Housing First Minnesota letter dated November 17, [2018] o Memorandum by Otsego City Attorney dated December 13, 2018 o Interior room storm shelter plan (Benzinger Homes) o In -ground storm shelter plan (D.R. Horton) o Prefabricated storm shelter plan (Capstone Homes) o Draft ordinance amendment o Draft findings for approval o Draft findings for denial Draft minutes of the Planning Commission meeting on 17 December 2018 POSSIBLE MOTION PLEASE WORD MOTION AS YOU WOULD LIKE IT TO APPEAR IN THE MINUTES: Motion to deny an application by Capstone Harvest Run, LLC for a Zoning Ordinance amendment based on the findings of fact and decision as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET INFORMATION FUNDING: BUDGETED: NA TPC The Planning Company PLANNING REPORT 3601 Thurston Avenue Anoka, MN 55303 763.231.5840 TPCQPIanningCo.com TO: Otsego Planning Commission FROM: D. Daniel Licht, AICP REPORT DATE: 13 December 2018 ACTION DATE: 5 March 2019 RE: Otsego — Zoning Ordinance; Storm Shelter TPC FILE: 101.01 BACKGROUND Capstone Homes, Inc. (d/b/a Capstone Harvest Run, LLC) has received preliminary plat and PUD -CUP approval for Harvest Run, Harvest Run is located east of Queens Avenue at 611t Street (adjacent to Watertower #3). The development incudes 61 single family dwellings to be constructed as slab -on -grade foundations without basements. Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that any slab -on -grade dwelling constructed within a preliminary plat approved after 26 September 2016 include a storm shelter. The developer in their due diligence for the project did not identify the storm shelter requirement within the Zoning Ordinance (including not being advised of the requirement by City staff prior to application for a building permit). The developer is seeking an exception from the storm shelter requirement for Harvest Run. The developer and City staff discussed an application for variance, but City staff indicated that approval of a variance was not supported and unlikely to be approved as the request would not meet the criteria for an undue hardship or practical difficultly unique to the physical conditions of the property. Rather, City staff indicated the only option for relief from the current storm shelter requirement would be to apply for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to repeal or modify the existing provision, which would apply to all future slab -on -grade dwellings. The developer submitted an application requesting that the Zoning Ordinance be amended to provide that the storm shelter be required to be offered to buyers as an option or repeal the requirement. A public hearing to consider the application was opened at the Planning Commission meeting on 3 December 2018. The public hearing was continued to 17 December 2018 to allow City staff an opportunity to review information the developer provided to the City on 30 November 2018, which was after the report to the Planning Commission had been distributed. City staff has extended the deadline for City Council action on the application to 5 March 2019 to allow both Planning Commission and City Council consideration of the developer's request. Exhibits: ■ Developer's narrative • Housing First Minnesota letter dated November 17, (2018] ■ Memorandum by Otsego City Attorney dated December 13, 2018 ■ Interior room storm shelter plan (Benzinger Homes) In -ground storm shelter plan (D.R. Horton) ■ Prefabricated storm shelter plan (Capstone Homes) M Draft ordinance amendment M Draft findings for approval M Draft findings for denial ANALYSIS Requirement. The greatest weather-related risl<for life and property in Otsego is from severe storms, and specifically a tornado. A basement within a dwelling does not ensure maximum protection for occupants. Conditions occurring during the most severe storm or tornado events may cause a structural collapse of the building into the basement that results in injury or death for people seeking shelter in these locations. However, seeking shelter in a basement is generally considered to be an acceptable level of protection in this area. Following severe storms that impacted the Otsego area, the Planning Commission raised the issue of resident safety for townhouses that do not have basements. City staff provided information regarding Federal Emergency Management Guidelines for storm shelters for discussion as part of a Zoning Ordinance update. The only city we are aware of that requires provision of a storm shelter for residential dwellings is Lakeville, which adopted the requirement in 2000. A storm shelter is not required by the Building Code. However, establishment of a requirement for a storm shelter to be installed is within the authority of the City to protect public health safety and welfare as stated in Section 11-1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance, The City of Lakeville has required construction of a storm shelter within slab -on - grade dwellings since 2000. The City of Hugo discussed a storm shelter requirement after a tornado struck the City in 2009, but makes provision of a storm shelter optional for the initial buyer. The Planning Commission believed that the risk of injury or death for residents of all dwellings that are constructed as slab -on -grade structures needed to be addressed and recommended the City Council adopt the following provisions within the Zoning Ordinance: 11-17-12: STORM SHELTERS; 2 A. For any dwelling or dwelling unit that is constructed slab on grade within a preliminary plat approved after September 26, 2016, provisions shall provide for storm protection internally to the dwelling or dwelling unit. B. Storm shelters internal to the dwelling or dwelling unit shall be provided in a bathroom or laundry room so as to ensure accessibility and that the storm shelter is not obstructed by storage. C. Compliance with this requirement shall be based upon Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-320 guidelines and standards; except, that the shelter door shall be solid core construction (not limited to metal) and only one deadbolt lock shall be required. The City Council approved the proposed storm shelter requirement on 26 September 2016, together with other Zoning Ordinance amendments. The requirement to provide a storm shelter applies only to slab -on -grade dwellings constructed within preliminary plats after the adoption of the ordinance so as not to require changes to dwellings that had already been subject to review and approval by the Planning Commission and City Council. The developer has submitted a letter from Housing First Minnesota, an association of builders that suggests the storm shelter requirement exceeds the City's authority. Minnesota Statutes includes a provision that require building code provisions regarding building systems that are different from any provision of the State Building Code. The City Attorney has reviewed this issue, including making contact with the League of Minnesota Cities and City of Lakeville attorney. The City Attorney concludes that the storm shelter requirement as established within the Zoning Ordinance is a legal requirement for slab -on -grade residential dwellings within Otsego. Implementation. The Department of Building Safety indicates the only slab -on -grade dwellings built since adoption of the storm shelter requirement to which the requirement applies are those by Benzinger Homes within Crimson Ponds West 4th Addition. These homes are single family dwellings that are marketed as villa homes with homeowners' association yard maintenance and snow removal. The storm shelter provided by Benzinger Homes within Crimson Ponds West 4th Addition is constructed as part of the master bedroom closet in accordance with FEMA P-320 guidelines, but could also be constructed as a bathroom or laundry room. Jeff Benzinger of Benzinger Homes states that the storm shelter adds $12,000 to the construction cost of the home. Storm shelters constructed within slab -on -grade dwellings within the City of Lakeville were also modified rooms within the interior of the dwelling. 3 D.R. Horton had considered constructing slab -on -grade single family dwellings with homeowners' association maintenance within the Magnolia Landing subdivision located at 60th Street (CR 137) and MacIver Avenue that would have required provision of a storm shelter in accordance with the Zoning Ordinance, D.R. Horton provided specifications for a prefabricated in -ground storm shelter, which the Department of Building Safety and our office determined meets the requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. D.R. Horton staff indicate the cost of the in - ground storm shelter to be $4,500 with an additional $2,000 of concrete work for a total cost of $6,500 per dwelling unit. The developer submitted plans for a prefabricated storm shelter that is bolted to the standard four -inch concrete slab foundation. The developer's narrative states that the cost of providing an above grade prefabricated storm shelter indicated on the attached plans for the slab -on - grade dwellings within Harvest Run would be $10,000 each. The developer's narrative further indicates that constructing a basement (unfinished) for these dwelling units would add $40,000. Proposed Amendment. The developer states that the storm shelter requirement of the Zoning Ordinance will negatively affect sales within Harvest Run. The developer's position is that the buyer and builder should determine as to whether a need exists for a storm shelter within a slab -on -grade dwelling in consideration of the risks involved. The developer requests the City either repeal the storm shelter requirement or modify the requirement such that builders are required to offer buyers the option of constructing a storm shelter within slab -on -grade dwellings. Our office recommends that there is no distinction between an amendment repealing the storm shelter requirement and a regulation making it optional as the option to provide a storm shelter already exists in the absence of requirement that one be constructed. Criteria. Applications to amend the Zoning Ordinance are to be considered subject to the criteria established by Section 11-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission and City Council are to consider possible adverse effects of the proposed amendment with their judgment based upon (but not limited to) the following factors: 1. The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the City Comprehensive Plan. Comment: The following policies guide the Planning Commission and City Council in the formulation and implementation of requirements for residential development set forth by the Zoning Ordinance: ■ Justification to amend the Comprehensive Plan (or Zoning Ordinance) to allow uses or activities not guided for or allowed shall be consistent with long-term community goals and not solely short term market demand or potential. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 20) 2 Adhere to the highest community design, planning and construction standards for all new residential development. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 23) Establish specific Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards for development of twin homes, townhouses and multiple family uses to ensure quality and innovation in construction and site design, as well as consistent application of development requirements. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 24) The City determined that provision of a storm shelter is a minimum requirement for all slab -on -grade dwellings to protect public health safety and welfare in Otsego. The developer's request to modify or repeal the storm shelter requirement for slab -on -grade dwellings is based solely on economic considerations for the construction of the initial building. There are several options available to provide for a storm shelter within slab - on -grade dwellings in lieu of constructing a basement. The storm shelter options are a minimum of one-quarter of the cost of a basement based on the developer's narrative. The market considerations offered by the developer must be weighed against the long- term public health safety and welfare benefit of the storm shelter requirement implemented by the City. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Comment: The proposed amendment will not affect land use compatibility. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within this title and other provisions of this Code. Comment: The proposed amendment will apply to all slab -on -grade dwellings in accordance with the policy of the Comprehensive Plan that development regulations be applied consistently and uniformly. 4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Comment: The proposed amendment will not affect traffic generation for residential dwellings. 5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Comment: Provision of a storm shelter serves to reduce risk of injury or death of residents during severe weather events in consideration of the vulnerability of slab -on - grade dwellings. The additional protection for these residents offered by a storm shelter can reduce the potential demand for emergency response services during a severe storm event when such services are most burdened. RECOMMENDATION The Planning Commission developed the requirement for provision of a storm shelter within all slab -on -grade dwellings, which is justified to protect public health safety and welfare. The City Council concurred with the recommendation of the Planning Commission and adopted the requirement. Repeal of the Zoning Ordinance requirement for a storm shelter within all residential dwellings would be a change in policy. Findings of fact for approval or denial of the application have been prepared by our office for consideration by the Planning Commission, POSSIBLE ACTIONS A. Motion to recommend approval of an ordinance repealing Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance based on the findings of fact as presented. B. Motion to recommend the application be denied based on a finding that the request is inconsistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the findings of fact as presented. C. Motion to table. C. Adam Flaherty, City Administrator/Finance Director Tam! Loff, City Clerl< Andy MacArthur, City Attorney Ron Wagner, City Engineer Barb Williams, Building Technician Lynn Paulson, Building Inspector Jason Coombe, Building Inspector no Application for Variance -- Safe Room Ordinance for Slab on Grade Homes November 2, 2018 BACKGROUND: Capstone Homes received preliminary plat approval for 80 residential lots in Harvest Run and final plat approval for 40 lots in phase 1. Half of the lots in the community are villa style, receiving snow and lawn maintenance through the HOA. The majority of the villa lots are slab on grade, The developer and builder were not made aware of the requirement of safe rooms for slab on grade lots until after phase 1 was developed and much of the future phase was graded. This requirement was not communicated to the developer and builder during the entitlement process. The safe room requirement will have a substantial negative impact on the sales potential of the villa product in Harvest Run, and the developer would not have proceeded with this product if the requirement would have been known. In addition, Capstone Homes has contracted the residential property east of Harvest Run, and the preliminary concept plans has 61 slab on grade villa homes and 102 single family homes. FURTHER DETAILS: • As written, the current safe room requirement in Otsego does not allow enough market demand for builders to offer the villa home. This villa style product has been welcomed in 11 municipalities throughout the metro area, including Otsego, which we have been a part of. It has been a desirable home style to the municipalities and to the home buyers we work with. With the exception of one smaller builder in Otsego, we have been unable to find builders in the Twin Cities who build slab on grade homes with safe rooms. However, there are a significant number of new residential developments in the area offering villa homes without safe rooms. • In order to add an unfinished basement to a villa style home, the additional cost to the buyer is $40,000. This pushes the price beyond the market in Otsego. • The safe room adds $10,000 to the price of a home which also pushes the price beyond the market, because most buyers do not give value to this item. • We believe the safe room concept is very similar to the previous state-wide fire sprinkler requirement, that has since been retracted. • The safe room is not required by the state building code. NOTE: While the City's desire to provide protection through a safe room is understandable, it is also important to consider the cost component for buyers and to collaborate with home builders to determine the most effective way to achieve the results the City is seeking to achieve for its residents. OPTIONS: • Require builder to offer (not require) safe rooms for slab on grade residential products. • Modify the requirement. capstone Homes, Inc. 1401.5 Sunfish Lake Blvd NW, Suite 400 Ramsey, MN 55303 Office: (763) 4273090 Fax: (763) 712 -9060 HOUSING*FIRST M I N N E S O T A To: Stephen Bona, Capstone Homes From: Nicholas Erickson, Regulatory Affairs Manager, Housing First Minnesota Date: November 27, 2017 Subject: Otsego Slab -On -Grade Storm Shelter Requirement The letter is in response to your inquiry about the City of Otsego's storm shelter requirement for slab - on -grade construction. The City of Otsego, under 11-17-12, requires: A. For any dwelling or dwelling unit that is constructed slab on grade within a preliminary plat approved after September 26, 2016, provisions shall provide for storm protection Internally to the dwelling or dwelling unit. B. Storm shelters internal to the dwelling or dwelling unit shall be provided In a bathroom or laundry room so as to ensure accessibility and that the storm shelter is not obstructed by storage. C. Compliance with this requirement shall be based upon Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) P-320 guidelines and standards; except, that the shelter door shall be solid core construction (not limited to metal) and only one deadbolt lock shall be required. (Prior Code § 20- 17-12) While the city likely used its zoning and planning authority to enact this mandate, at a time of increasing questions about disappearing housing affordability, questions about the cost of mandates enacted under cities' zoning authority are being raised by our builder members and their home buyers. The State of Minnesota, in its enabling legislation forthe Minnesota Building Code, states that no municipality has the ability to impose its own building code requirements. Minn. Statute 3268.121 Subd. 2(c); A municipality must not by ordinance, or through development agreement, require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code. One could argue the provision enacted by the City of Otsego under 11-17-12 potentially exceeds required building code provision. More research is needed to determine the appropriatlness of this requirement. Offering homebuyers the choice of a storm shelter instead of mandating it would have eliminated this concern, 2960 CENTRE POINTE DRIVE, ROSEVILLE, MN, 55113 1 HOUSINGFIRSTMN.ORG To: Otsego Planning Commission From: Andy MacArthur, City Attorney cc: Adam Flaherty, City Administrator, Otsego City Council Date: December 13, 2018 Re: Proposed Ordinance Amendment- Otsego Zoning Ordinance- Safe Rooms Capstone Homes as applied for an Ordinance amendment to the Otsego Zoning Ordinance making the provision of safe rooms for slab on grading housing as optional rather than mandatory. In submitting documents for review, Capstone has provided the City with a memo from Housing First Minnesota. Housing First Minnesota questions the ability of the City to mandate such a requirement due to restrictions placed on municipalities regarding the Building Code as set forth in Minnesota Statute 3268.121, Subd. 2c. which states that, "A municipality must not by ordinance , or through development agreement, require building code provisions regulating components or systems of any structure that are different from any provision of the State Building Code". The Otsego City Code 11-17-12 requires that storm protection be provided within a dwelling or dwelling unit if the structure is constructed as slab on grade. This shelter requirement is based upon FEMA guidelines and standards, and to insure that homes constructed without basements have a readily available storm shelter area in case of tornado or severe weather. The provision was adopted by the City Council in 2016 for general public safety and in light of certain severe storms which had struck the general area. The Otsego requirements for storm shelters are contained in other City zoning ordinances within the Metro area specifically the City of Lakeville. None of the cities surrounding Otsego have a similar provision. Other cities apparently believe that the building requirements of the State Building Code are adequate to provide storm protection or have not considered the issue. The City regularly provides for safety and cosmetic additions to buildings separate from the building code. In this case, the City has opted to require that certain buildings provide storm shelter due to their construction. This requirement is not regulation of the "components or systems" of any structure "different from any provision of the State Building Code". Rather, the requirement is instead a safety provision due to the limitations of the structure, in this case where there is no basement to provide storm shelter. Part of the State mandate to provide for municipal planning and zoning is that the adopted City Zoning regulations are to protect public safety and health as per Minnesota Statute 462.351. The Otsego City zoning ordinance provides for the safety of persons living in slab on grade housing where they do not have access to a basement in the event of a storm. The basis of the code provision is to provide for adequate shelter, much like a storm shelter in a mobile home park. In other words, the City is not requiring any change in the normal building code requirements, but is rather requiring that this type of construction provide for storm shelter. The requirement is not a modification of the building code, but is rather a separate requirement of the zoning ordinance. Another alternative would be not to allow slab on grade housing within the City or within particular areas of the City. Housing First Minnesota would argue that the City requirement is, in fact, "different" from the State Building Code and that, since the State Building Code does not require additional storm shelter requirements the City cannot dictate those requirements. That would be based upon an interpretation of law that the uniformity of the State Building Code statewide would override the ability of cities to include additional safety requirements in their zoning ordinance to address safety issues affecting that particular community as determined by local officials. The City zoning requirement was in force and effect at the time that Harvest Run was approved by the City. Apparently, the Developer did not make themselves aware of the safe room provisions at that time and raised no objection to the ordinance or its validity at that time. The Developer has requested the proposed ordinance amendment in order to appeal application of this requirement after approval. Based upon the above, it is my opinion that the existing City zoning ordinance provision requiring a storm shelter for slab on grade residential dwelling construction is a valid and enforceable requirement based upon the City's zoning authority and State mandates to protect the health and safety of City residents. The provision is not a modification of the Building Code, but is a separate safety requirement arising from the City's zoning authority. The City Council has determined that in this particular City, and due to unique circumstances within the City, specific safety requirements are needed to protect residents in homes with no basements. z FEMA P-320 SAFE ROOM CONSTRUCTION PLANS TAKING SHELTER FROM THE STORM: BUILDING A SAFE- ROOKIN YOUR HOME OR SMALL BUSINESS ----------------------- r----- J J LIMROFLIABiLiTY THE DESIGNS IN THIS BOOKLET ARE BASED ON EXTENSIVE RESEARCH OFTHE J I CAUSES AND EFFECTS OF WINDSTORM DAMAGETO 8UlLOINGS. SAFE ROOMS I DESIGNED AND BUILTTO THESESTANDAROS SHOULD PROVV��DEA HIGH DEGREEI I OF OCCUPANTPROTECTION DURING EXTREME WINDSTORMS(TORNADOES I (ANO HURRICANES). ANY SUBSTITUTION OF EITHER MATERIALS ORpESIGN 1 (CONCEPTS MAYDECREASETHE LEVEL OF OCCUPANT PROTECTION AND/OR J I INCREASET.E POSSIBILITY OFPERSONAL INJURY DURING A SEVERE WIND J EVENT. l I BECAUSE IT IS NOT POSSIBLETO PREDICT ORTEST ALL CONDIDONSTHAT MAY I J OCCUR DURING SEVERE W INDSTORMS OR CONTROLTHE QUALITY OF I ( CONSTRUCTION AMONG O7HERTHINGS,THEDESIGNER DOES NOTWARRANT I THEDESIGN. J THE DESIGNER NEITHER MANUFACTURES NOR SELLS SAFE ROOMS BUILT FROMI I THESE DESIGNS. THE DESIGNERS HAVE NOT MADE AND DO NOT MAKE ANY I REPRESENTATION.WRRRANTY, OR COVENANT. EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH I I RESPECTTO THE DESIGN, CONDTIION, OUALTfY, DURABILITY, OPE A ON, 1 (FITNESS FOR USE, OR SUITABILITY OFTHESAFE ROOM IN ANYRESPECi ( WHATSOEVER THEDESIGNERS SHALL NOT BE OBLIGATED OR LIABLE FOR RDAMAGESDFORTO USERS 1=1 OFTHESAFE ROOM, OR ANY OTHER PERSON CID CONSEC, OR OR EENTITYARISING OUT OF.111N I CONNECTION WITH THE USE, CONDITION, AND/OR PERFORMANCE OFTHESAFE 1 I ROOM BUILT FROM THIS DESIGN OR FROM THEMAINTENANCETHEREOF-_ FEMA P-320 (2014) I SHEETTRtE INDEX SHEET * SAFE ROOMS FOR SMALL -BUSINESSES OR RESIDENTIAL USE WITH MORE THAN 16 OCCUPANTS ARE COMMUNITY SAFE ROOMS THAT HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS THAT THESE CONSTRUCTION PLANS DO NOT PROVIDE FOR. SEE SECTION 4.2 OF FEMA P-320 FOR FURTHER OR. 2014 Z r 1.STl ON RUC" NECESSARI INCLUDE BI STRUCTURI 2. IF THERE IS STRINGEW CONTI SHORING' ACCORDAI COMPCON, a. oIMENsto e� OPTIONS. SHAD BE 6. DETAILS 7 NU AN OF AC BE 6. CI DI 9. T 10. F R 11. 7 E T 1z 13. 14. 15. 1S. 17. CONCRETE NOTES I. REINFORCING ALLY COMPLEMp W OM S, THE MORE NOTES, SPECIFIATIONS, AND FLAN 2 REINFORCII >MONG THE GENERAL NLLAPPLY llT1E51N LBE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL �UCTURES STREETS ANDLUTILI SHA LL _ REINFORCU NOTED OTk ASTM A706 ON OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, OUIREMENTS. LCC AL BUILDING DEPARTMENL ALL WO ANOR CONST RU CTION AND SAFETY RE 3. TWo�AM1ERIC . !CABLE BUILDING CODES, REGULATIONS. FORVERIRATION ANO COORDINATION OF ALL BE MADE C ALL REINF Y BE RESPONSIBLE .IS AND ELEVATIONS. TRACTORS CONVENIENCE 1F AN AND SNAIL` COOORDNATTE AAL.LL DEMLS- AND ON 4 BEM'- RE OTHERWII YATASPECt-IC LOCATION i FOR ALL NECESSARY CHANGES UL,LAppLy, THOUGH NOT NECESSARIL SHALL CONFORM TOyOMIT WORK S. RONFOBE SHALL TAILS ARESHOWN, CDLygTRUCTION AILS MAY ONLY SHOW ONE SIDE OF CONNE071ON OR MAY OMIT SE DRAWINGS, . B 6 REINEOR AL STRUCTURAL NOTES ANDD RLTY- WL{EREDISCREPANCIEVER GENERAL OVER GI7JERAL a, CON b. Cot, >SHALLTAKEPRECEDENCE tESHOWN INTHESE DRAWINGS E5CAL,nn--KANAPPROPRATETRADES- ELECTRI 7_ WELDED LAPS IN' DHANICAL, PLUMBING, AND ;OISCRACTORS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION- OPENINGS MAY REQUIRE ON TYPICAL DETAILS'OPENINGS NEED TO MEASUP SPAGIN( CINTRACTOPPORTSRTSHOWN ^C500SECTIONS30-1ANDBE AS DIRECTED BY THE LOCALBUILDING S FAECHM HAVECI Loc -Es, jµ REQUIREMENTS DIMENSIONS APPLY. SCALED- - OF UPUFT/SHEAR THE SA 9. PROMO DRAWLNGSSHOULDNOTBE IRERS RECOMMENDATION' FORNSTALUNG A PROFESSIONAL- SFACIl` REINFC CTORS. OF PROTECTION, ASNY DESIGN CONDIl70N FOUND TO 8 E ROOM PROVIDESTHEDESIRED LEVEL OR PRI CTECT SHOULD BE CONS�TFOIA iOSEREPRESENTEO ON,EP SH ULD BE DESIGNEDTO MEET LEVELD PGNS 10. PPROVE 11. WHEN TALENT 114 M1ENTSOFTHE FFONRTH114 2ti1 FEMAP3b't'DESIGNAND 12. ALL BI DM CRCTFRIA SAFE ROOWARETHAT HAVEBEENEVS ORtCD 10AN, OR l SCREWSAND HARD CAST 13. WHEF USE000MMUNITY 04ONLY .APPROVED PRODUCT CERTIFICATION HOD S� REn IRE2.M1ENTS BASED ON DETAILS- VERITY .TEE BE PROVIDED PER PIAN HORL 14 ND ICC 500. OGHT FOR SAULROOM DING COSHALL E FBE OR 6EDCTERIOR SAFE ROOM"""ER REN 15. FOU yADOPTED 1 FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN UIREMEMS. LCC 500 AND 2015 FEMA BOL' ELEI ROOMS SEE2014 18 FLY CEK t7 ALL FRE 1B. NO VIE SLAB ON GRADE GENERAL NOTES: W WR b'X6 W29XW29 (N SHEETS) ORIA BARSAT 19. DO LO 1. 4' (MINIMUM) SLAB ON GRADE REINFORCED WITH TO PROPERLY LOCATE REINFORCING. 20. CC IT 0C EACH WAYPLRNCATE RWNuG BY ITFiE ENGINEER FSLAB. PROVIDE BOLGTERS, CHAIRS, OTHER MEANS AP WASHED GRANULAR' NU y SLAB ON GRADE INSIUPPORT DETHE BUILDING STRAP LIAKY FLOW OF GROUND WATER, ORTED ON A r DRAINAGE P OVIDEA 2.L- C< COURSE DRAINAGE COURSEFSHALL BE UPWARD CAPI OWS:COURSEOF ALLOIEAN BE'WASHED, EVEN D 4� MA7ERIALPLACEDTC CUT OFF UPWARD LY STAHLE BASE FOR PIPES OR OTHERSTRUCnIRES MATERIAL UNCRUSH X12 NCH SAND 22 IF GRADED MUCTURE OF CLEAN CRUSHED STONE, OR CRUSHED OR A5CANGHED GRAVEL ASTM 0 G COARSE AGGREGATE GRA DING SIZE 5T, WITH 10D PERCENT L NOT MORETHAN Sp ERCENT PASSING A NO. S SIEVE C 3. NONSULTWITH LOCAL CO DE OFRCW-FOR VF FIRERSLACOMMENDATIONS. ACEOFALLWALLANBE REMOVED- BELOW FLOOR 4. PROVIDE.IOiNTflU.ER A7THE tNTERf BE REMOVED - 4. S. ALL E)CPANSNQ.CiAYS WTTHN 2MP FL00R SLABS SHALL .... , oaOFERLY COMPACTED AND SUBGRADE BROUGHT TO ATRUE AND LEVEL P L ONFORMTOTHE'ACI ED CON 1CR ND E THE THEMOST CURRENT ,RCING BAR )- ASTM A615. )R ALL BARS UNLESS BE WELDED SHALLBE iEES: IS NOT LESS THAN THE 'OFV COUPT.^eRS, R ETC. SHALL 125% OF TBODY SLID HE STRENGTH OF FOR ^1306.1. SHALL HAVE A CON1lN000S WATERSTOP ELEMENTS INTERSECT, CORNER, OR FD L,,pLE NGTHSTO PROVIDE CONTINURY Of CEMBNt Ur ABOVE DEGREES : FCCANG70ASTMC6 So 3EAIRENTRAINED. AIRCONTENTOF IN CONCRETE EXPOSED TO WEATHER, L.00RS WITH ATROWELED FINISK AT SUCH 40T EXCEED 31 6S, AND INTERIOR SLABS ON GRADE SHALL t,0D0 PSI WITH ASLUMP OF 4'd; V- THE 0.45 BYWElGHT. STRENGTH OF {A VEA2&DAY COMPRESSNESTREN T Or IUM WATER -To CEMENT RATIO SHALL 0.45 R PLACEMENT OF ANY CONCRETE MUX A ) ASTM C494,-TYPE/4 D, E. SRF SHALL BE DTOTHEMDCATTHEShF )R HIGH.FLANGE WeATER-REDUCLNG onTFO INTO CONCRETE ASSREVIATION LEGEND AS ANCHOR BOLT INSTITUTE ACI AMERICAN CONCRETE CONSTRUC RISC_ AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF STEEL AWS AMERICAN AMFRICANWELDNG STEEL INSTITUTE BO BOTTOM OF BSRG N M BOTTOM CIP CAST IN PLACEONCRST WALL CMU CONCRETE MAS CONC CONCRETE CONN CONNECTION CONT CONTINUOUS DBL DI AMETEROUBLE EL ELEVATION EQ EQUAL CHWY FFNND FOUNDATION FF FINISHED FLOOR GXG FOOTIN GAGE G GYP Gypsum HORIZ HoRMONTAL ICF INSULATED CONCRETE FORMS NFO INFORMATION KSI KIPS PER SQUARE INCH L LENGTH LS POUNDS LONG LONGITUDINAL MAXIMUM MAX MEP MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL. PLUMBING MFR MANUFACTURER MIN MNNuM MISC MISCELLANEOUS ML MASONRY LINTEL MTL METAL NTS NOT70SCALE OC ON CENTER PCF POUNDS PERCUBICF'00T PLF POUNDSPERUNEARFOOT PSF POUNDSPERSQUARE FOOT Psl POUNDS PER SQUARE INCH PT PRESSURETREATED RE REFER TO REINF REINFORCING SIM SIMILAR SF SQUAREFOOT SFRM SAFEROOM SOG SLAB ON GRADE STI PEC THICKNESS -TSB TOP AND BOTTOM TO TOP OF ELEVATION TOC TOP OF CONCRETE TOW TOP OFW)AU-NELEVEAnoNON NP 'TYPICAL OTHERWISE UNO UNLESS NOTED W WIDTH Wl WITH WWR WELDEDWIREREINFORCNG FEMA GENERAL NOTES SRO -1 NBER 2( F COLD•FORM (LIGHT GAUGE) SHEATHING NOTES 1. YIELD STRENGTH FOR METAL IS 36 KSI MINIMUM 2 IN HURRICANE -PRONE REGIONS, ALL METAL SHOULD BE G60 GALVANIZED BYTHE MANUFACTURER. 3. SAFE ROOM W1 STEEL SHEATHING COVERED Wl GYP. BOARD FINISH OR OTHERWISE SEPARATED FROM CONTACT BY SAFE ROOM OCCUPANTS NEED NOT BE GROUNDED. 4. SAFE ROOM W/ STEEL SHEATHING UNCOVERED AND AVAILABLE FOR CONTACT BY SAFE ROOM OCCUPANTS MUST BE GROUNDED ATA SINGLE LOCATION WI COPPER WIRE AND GROUND ROD TO MEET NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE AND LOCAL REQUIREMEMTS- DOORNOTES 1. E SELECTED DOOR SHALL MEET THE DESIGN CRITERIA OF 21)15 FEMA 8361 AND 2014 [CC -500. ALL DOORS SHALL BEATESTED ASSEMBLY AND INSTALLED PER MANUFACTURES RECOMMENDATIONS 2. FOR WOOD FRAMED SAFE ROOM, DOOR MUST Be PLACED ON LONGESTWALL 3. FOR SMALL BUSINESS APPLICATIONS, DOORS ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADA ACCESSIBLE WITH A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 3'-0: DESIGN CRITERIA 1, DESIGN CODES IRC 20121 ISC2012/FEMA P-3613RDX16 ACC 500.2014 RISK CATEGORY IV 2. GRAVITY LOADS A TYPICAL ROOF DEAD LOAD SELFWEIGHT COLLATERALLOAD 5 PSF & LIVELOADS TYPICAL ROOF LIVE LOAD (UR) IODPSFMIN C. ROOFSNOW LOAD - CONSULT LOCAL PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FORTHE DESIGN OF SNOW LOADS WHEN SNOW LOADS COULD EXCEED THESPECIFIED ROOF LIVE LOAD. 3. LATERAL LOADS A WIND LOADS WIND SPEED 25D MPH WINO IMPORTANCE FACTOR (1) 1.D EXPOSURECATEGORY C DIRECTIONALITY FACTOR (Kd) 1.0 TOPOGRAPHIC FACTOR 0<71) 1.0 INTERNAL PRESSURE(GCpI) 10.55 MASOIW GENERALNOTES SEISMIC LOADS IN AREAS OF HIGH OR MODERATE SEISMICDESIGN, CONSULTALOCAL DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SEE SECTION42 OF PPO FOR MORE INFORMATION. 4. MISSILE IMPACT CRITERIA VFRTICALSURFACES 15 POUND 2x4AT 1DOMPH HORIZONTALSURFACES 15 POUND 2x4 AT 67MPH I. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION (CMU) SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS_ MASONRY STRENGTH NOT SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN PLAN SHALL BE fm -1500 PSI MINIMUM 2. CONCRETE MASONRY SHALL BE HOLLOW LOAD-BEARING CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS CONFORMING TO ASTM C90,- ALL UNITS SHALL BE PLACED IN RUNNING BOND CONSTRUCTION W TTH ALLVERTICAL CELIS IN ALIGNMENT EXCEPTAT ORYSTACKED INFILL LOCATIONS 3_ MORTARSHALL CONFORM TO REQUIREMENTS OFTYPE M OR& 4. REINFORCING STFgSHALL CONFO�RNMTO THE REQUIREMENTS OFASTM ASIS. REINFORCING SHALL BE GRADE 60 (FY=60 KSI) DEFORMED BARS FOR ALL BARS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS OR DETAILS. ALL REINFORCINGTO BE WELDED SHALL BE ASTMA70B, GRADE 60 LOW ALLOY WELDABLE STEEL. 5. WELDING OF REINFORCING BARS, METAL INSERTS, AND CONNECTIONS SHALLCONFORM TO AMERICAN WELDING SOCIETY'S AWS DIA -STRUCTURAL WELDING CODE -AND SHALL BE MADE ONLYAT LOCATIONS SHOWN ON PLANS OR DETAILS. & ALL REINFORCING SHALL BE BENT COLD. BARS SHALL NOT BESTRAIGHTENED AND RE- BENT FIELD BENDING OF REBAR SHALL NOT Be ALLOWED UNLESS SPECIFICALLY NOTED OTHERWISE. 7. REINFORCING BAR SHALL BE DETAILED SAND PLACED WITHIN tlX TOLERANCE PERPENDPACING SHOWN ON PLANS ARE AT MAXIMUM ICULAR LLARRTTO E WALL AND WITHIN 2'TOLERANCE PARALLELTO EWALL SUPPORT ALL REINFORCEMENT70 PREVENT DISPLACEMENT CAUSED BY CONSTRUCTION LOADS OR BY PLACEMENT OF GROUT AND MORTAR BEYOND ALLOWABLE TOLERANCES. S. MASONRY GROUTSHALLBE IN ACCORDANCEWITHASTMC476. GROUT EXCEPT FOR SELF - CONSOLIDATING GROUT SHALL HAVE A SLUMP BETWEEN BAND II* WHEN MEASURED IN ACCORDANCEWITH ASTM CT43. ALL CELLS IN CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS SHALL BE SOLID GROUTED. EXCEPTION: DRY -STACKED MASONRY FOR WOOD•FRAME INFILL OPTION. 9_ REFERENCE MASONRY• DEVELOPMENTAND SPUCETASLE FOR REINFORCING BAR LAP LENGTHS IN MASONRY CONSTRUCTION. 10. MINIMUM VERTICALWALL REINFORCING SHALL SEAS INDICATED INE PLANS AND SHALL BE FULL HEIGHT IN CENTER OF GROUTED CELLAT WALL INTERSECTIONS, CORNERS AND DOORJAMB& 11. MINIMUM HORTZONTALWALLREINFORCINGSHALLINCLUDEA BOND BEAMATTHETOP OF THE WALL WITH A MINIMUM OF 1 NOA BAR CONTINUOUS AROUND PERIMETER FOR S' MASONRY WALLS AND I NO. S CONTINUOUS AROUND THE PERIMETER FOR T MASONRY WALLS. PROVIDE BENT BARS PER TYPICALDETAILSTO MATCH AND LAP WITH HORIZONTAL BOND BEAM REINFORCING AT CORNERS AND WALL INTERSEC IONSTO MAINTAIN EA CONTINUITY OF BOND BM REINFORCEMENT. 12. MINIMUM MASONRY UNTELSHALL BE AS INDICATED INTHEPLANS.ALL UNTEL REINFORCING SHALL EXTEND 2 FEET PASTJAMBS UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE ON PLANS OR DETAILS. 13. MASONRY VENEERSHALLBEATTACHED TO SUPPORTINGWALL FRAMING WITH 3/1V DIA. WALLIIES OR DOVETAIL -TYPE METALTTES OF EQUIVALENT STIFFNESS EMBEDDED INTO HORIZONTAL MORTARJOINTS_ MAXIMUM VERTICALSPACING OFTIES SHALL SE 16". MAX HORIZONTALSPACING SHALL 6E24". TIES IN ALTERNATE COURSES SHALL BE STAGGERED - PROVIDE 9 GA. WIRE REINFORCING IN HORIZONTAL MORTARJOINTS AT IV Q.C. ENGAGE 9 GA. WIRE WITH WALLANCHORTIES. 14. LOOSEANGLE BRICK LINTELS SHALL BE SPECIFIED BY OTHERS. 15. RETAINING WALLS, BASEMENT WALLS, ETC., SHALLBEADEQUATELY WATERPROOFED AND DRAINED AS SPECIFIED BY OTHERS. 16. WHERE VERTICAL REINFORCING INTERSECTS HORIZONTAL REINFORCING, BOTH SHALL BE CONTINUOUS. 17. MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR GROUT POUR SHALL NOT EXCEED 64' UNLESS CLEANOUT IS PROVIDED ATTHE BOTTOM OF EACH CELL CONTAINING REINFORCEMENT ORATA MAXIMUM HOMZONTALSPACING OF3r WHICHEVER iS LESS. I& FOLLOW ALL MANUFACTURER'S INSTALLATION RECOMMENDATIONS WHERE DOWELS, BOLTS, OR INSERTS ARE CALLED TO BE ANCHORED TO CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE ELEMENTS USING EPDXY ADHESIVES OR MECHANICAL ANCHORAGE - INSULATED CONCRETE FORMS GENERAL NOTES 1. ICFSYSTEM UTILIZED SHALL BE FLAT PANEL SYSTEM PROVIDING CONSISTENTWALL - THICKNFSS ACROSS THE ENTIRE WALL DO NOT USE WAFFLE, SCREEN, POST AND BEAM ETC. ICF SYSTEMS. 2. EXTREME CARE SHOULD BETAKEN WHEN MSRATING THE CONCRETE INSIDE THE PERMANENT ICF FORMS TO ASSURE CONSOLIDATION OF CONCRETEAND TO EUMINATE VOIDS iN THE WALL LIKEWISE, CARE SHOULD BETAKEN NOTTO OVER-MBRATE CONCRETETHUSSEGREGATINGAGGREGATE 3. REFERENCE ICF MANUFACTURE FOR MAXIMUM POUR HEIGHT& 4. CONCRETE FOR ICF WALLS SHALLHAVE A26-DAYSTRENGTH OF4,000 PSI WITH ASLUMP OF S'+h1" PER MANUFACTURE RECOMMENDATION& THE MAXIMUM WATER TO CEMENTRATIO SHALL BE OAS BY WSGHT- GENERAL WOOD FRAMING NOTES 1. WOOD FRAMING LUMBERTO HAVE MODULUS OF ELASTICITY=1,200,000 PSI MIN. AND Fh=850 PSL MIN. FOR NORMAL DURATION LOADING. EXAMPLES OF ACCEPTABLE GRADE AND SPECIES OF FRAMING LUMBER INCLUDE #2AND BETTER SOUTHERN PINE, DOUGLAS FIR, HEM -FIR, ANDSPRUCEPINEFIR. 2 PLYWOOD SHOULD BE RATED SHEATHING SPAN RATING 32M6, MIN. 23/32 THICKNESS. 3. NAILS SHALL BE COMMON WIRE NAILS AS SPECIFIED ON THE PLANS. 4. FOLLOW MANUFACTURERS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR INSTALLATION OF UPLIFT/SHEAR RESISTANCE CONNECTORS. 5. ALL PLYWOOD JOINTS SHOULD BE SOLIDLY BLOCKED wl2c6. & WALL AND CEILING PENETRATIONS THROUGH THE MISSILE PROTECTION SHEATHING SHALL BE MINIMIZED. 7. DO NOT DRILLTHROUGH WALL STUDS OR TOP AND BOTTOM PLATES FOR MEP SUPPLY LINES OR VENTS. INSTALL MEP SUPPLY LINES AND VENTS IN PLUMBING CHASE. 8. ALL WOOD FRAMING SHALL BE FREE OF LARGE KNOTS, WARPS, SPLITS, OR DEFECTS. S. WHERE CALLED FOR ON THE PLANS TO USE FRAMING ANCHORS USE GALVANIZED OR CORROSION•RESISTANT EQUIVALENT STEEL FRAMING ANCHORS. 10. ALL LUMBER IN CONTACT WITH CONCRETE OR MASONRY SHALL BE TREATED AND SHALL COMPLY WITH APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS OF AWPA STANDARD U1. USE CATEGORYUC3& I'L AT OPENINGS PROVIDE FOUR (4) 2XTRIMMER STUDS AT EACH SIDE OF OPENING. 12. SHEATHING MAY BE INSTALLED ON INSIDE OR OUTSIDE FACE SINGLE LAYER TO BE INSTALLED ON OPPOSITE FACE FOUNDATION NOTES 1. ALL FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR ON AND BE FORMED BY CLEAN. UNDISTURBED, VIRGIN. NON-ORGANIC SOIL OR CONTROLLED ENGINEERED FILL WITH A MINIMUM NET BEARING CAPACITY OF 1500 PSF. 2. EXTERIOR FOOTINGS SHALL BEAR AT OR BELOW MINIMUM BEARING DEPTH PERTHE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIAL MINIMUM BEARING DEPTH 1S 3T BELOW ADJACENT FINISHED GRADE. 3. STANDARD PROCEDURES OF FROST PkoTEC110N FOR FOUNDATIONS AND EXCAVATIONS SHALL. BE EMPLOYED FORWINTER CONSTRUCTION. SACKFILLINGOF EXCAVATIONS SHALL BE DONEAS SOON AS POSSIBLETO PROTECT FOUNDATIONS FROM FROST 4- ALLSOILBELOW SLABS AND FOOTINGS SHALL BE PROPERLY COMPACTED AND SUBGRADE BROUGHTTO ATRUEAND LEVEL PLANE BEFORE PLACING CONCRETE- S. ONCRETE5. FOUNDATION WALLS SHALL HAVETEMPORARY BRACING BEFORE BACKFILL IS PLACED AGAINSTTHEW TEMPORARY BRACING SHALL NOT BE REMOVED UNTIL WALL IS PERMANENTLY BRACED. & FOUNDATION PENETRATIONS SHALL BESUBJECTTO APPROVAL BY PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER ORARCHITEC. PENETRATIONS SHALL BETHROUGH THE FOUNDATION STEMWALL OR WITH A MINIMUM OF V COVER BELOW FOOTING. 7. IN AREA OF THE BUILDING. EXISTING ORGANIC MATERIAL, UNSUITABLE SOIL, ABANDONED FOOTINGS, AND ANY OTHER EXISTING UNSUITABLE MATERIALS SHALL BE REMOVED. & DRAINAGE FILL SHALL BEA FREE43RAWING GRANULAR MATERIAL USE#57STONE OR APPROVED EQUAL. REFER TO ASTM D448 FOR GRADATION. S. EXCAVATION FOR FOOTINGS SHALL BE CUTTOACCURATE SIZE AND DIMENSIONS AS SHOWN ON PLANS. ALL LOOSE MATERIAL BELOW FOOTINGS SHALL BE REMOVED AND E SURFACE BROUGHT TO AREASONABLETRUE AND LEVEL PLANE BEFORE PLACING CONCRETE 10. WHEN INSTALLATION AND FOUNDATION REQUIREMENTS ARE ADDRESSED BY LOCAL DESIGN PROFESSIONAL, THESE DESIGNS SHALL EXCEED THE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THEICC500 FOR RESIDENTIAL SHELTERS FOR BOTH TORNADO AND HURRICANE HAZARDS- CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE ' LAP SPLICE LENGTHS (INCHES) SIZE TENSION(CLASS B SPLICE) COMPRESSION BAR fC�000 psi fc/4000 psi fc5000 psi 3000, 4000 & 5000 psi SIZ.E TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER 51 3 21 16 21 15 21 I6 12 4 23 17 21 16 21 16 1s 5 28 21 24 16 23 17 19 6 34 26 29 22 26 20 23 752 40 45 34 41 31 26 8 62 47 -54 41 49 37 30 DEVELOPMENTLENGTHS (INCHES) SHOWN ON DETATL9lSR1.0 TENSION (CLASS B SPLICE) lCOMPRIESSON BAR r.=3000 ps1 fC=4000 psi 0 psi 3000, 4000 & 5000 psT SIZE TOP OTHER TOP OTHER TOP OTHER T-0"xi'-0'xCONT 3 25 17 22 15 19 13 B 4 33 22 29_1_19 26 17 11 542 28 36 24 32 22 14 6 50 33 43 29 39 4 16 772 48 63 42 56 37 19 8 62 55 71 47 64 42 22 NOTES. 1. TOP BARS ARE HORIZONTAL REINFORCEMENT PLACED SO THAT MORE THAN 12' OF FRESH CONCRETE IS CAST BELOW THE REINFORCEMENT 2. LAP SPLICE LENGTHS ARE BASED ON BARS SPACED AT BAR DIAMETERS OR MORE ON CENTER. NOTIFY ENGINEER IF SPACING IS LESS THAN4 BAR DIAMETERS. g CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE TABLE SR0.3 MASONRY DEVELOPMENT AND SPLICE LENGTHS BAR I TENSION/COMPRESSION SIZE 6• MASONRY I 8" MASONRY 3 12 12 4 20 15 51 32 23 6 1 54 43 S MASONRY DEVELOPMENT & SPLICE LENGTHS SR0.3 ' ROOF DESIGN OPTIONS WALL REINFORCEMENT WALLTYPE SPAN BFT 5 i 0 FT 5 12 FT 5 FT WOOD FRAME CONCRETETHICKNESS 4'REINFORCEMENT 4-0'x1=GxCONT (5)#5 BAR CONTLONG. AND #5 BAR x 3=6'TRANS AT I2'OC a #4BAREWATIO-OC #SBAREWATIZ'OC #SBAREWAT6`OC #5 BAR EW AT S"OC S"CMU J IST(S) (2)2%SAT1TOC (2)2.SAT12"OC (2)2xID AT 1T OC (2)2x10 AT IT OC. NOTES 1. WOOD FRAMED SAFE ROOMS CAN ONLY USE WOOD FRAMED ROOF DESIGNS WOOD OR CONCRETE 2'-0'x1=0"x CONT 2. WHEN USING WOOD ROOFWTTH CONCRETE,CMU. OR ICFWALS, SHEATHING MUST BE INSTALLED ON INTERIOR OFCEIUNGAS SHOWN ON DETATL9lSR1.0 WOOD T -3'x1 -3'x CONT 3 ROOF DESIGN OPTIONS Sft0.3 WOOD CONSTRUCTION CONNECTOR SCHEDULE LOCATION REQUIRED UPUFT SIMPSON UNITED STEEL CAPACITY(LBS) STRONG -TIE PRODUCTS A 800 HGAIO HGA10 B 1,650 SSTBI6ANOBPSS/&6• STBI6^ C 1,500 2-MTS12 2-MCW12 D 1,500 HETAI6 HTA16 E 1 800 HGAM10 HGAM10 F I 1,s00 LGT2 LUGT2 G 1 ,700 2SP6 2SPT6 H 1,700 KFTA 1S OR PA123 2-HTA12 J 4,500 HDU8SOS2.S PHDB NOTES: THE PLATE WASHER SHALL BE CENTERED ON THE BOTTOM PLATE WITH A STANDARD CUT WASHERSEPWEEN THE PLATE WASHER AND NUT. WHEN IN CONTACT WITH PRESERVATIVE TREATED PLATE, IT IS RECOMMENDED TO INSTALL HOT -DIPPED GALVAN2ED (HDG) FINISH. `• AT TIME OF PUBLICATION, NO EQUIVALENT USP CONNECTOR AVAILABLE PLATE WASHER MAY BE FABRICATED FROM 3 GAGE STEEL V LONG x4112" WIDE BECAUSE NOTALL CONTRACTORS ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE TYPE OF STRUCTURAL CONNECTORS SHOWN IN THESEDRAWINGS, THE NAMES OFTWO COMPANIES THAT MANUFACTURE CONNECTORS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THIS TABLE THE LIST OF COMPANIES IS NOT, HOWEVER, EXHAUSTIVE ADDITIONALLY, THIS UST IS NOT INTENDED TO EXPRESS PREFERENCE FOR THOSE MANUFACTURERS AND I OR THEIR PRODUCTS SYTHE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT NOR IS IT AN ENDORSEMENT OF THOSE MANUFACTURERS AND I OR THEIR PRODUCTS USE ONLY HARDWARE THAT HAVE BEEN EVALUATED THROUGH AN ANSWPROVED PRODUCT CERTIFICATION BODY SUCH AS IAPMO-OES OR ICC -ES_ F-47 WOOD CONSTRUCTION CONNECTOR SCHEDULE SR0.3 FOOTING SCHEDULE WALL REINFORCEMENT WALLTYPE ROOFTYPE FOOTING SIZE REINFORCEMENT WOOD FRAME WOOD 4-0'x1=GxCONT (5)#5 BAR CONTLONG. AND #5 BAR x 3=6'TRANS AT I2'OC WOODICMUINFILL WOOD 3'-0'x 1-3•x CONT (4)#5 BAR CONT LONG.A1,10#5 BAR x2'-6"TRANS AT 12* CC S"CMU WOOD OR CONCRETE I Z3"x1-W xCONT (4)#5 BAR CONT LONG.AND #5 BAR 1'-9`TRANS AT I2 -OC 8"CMU WOOD OR CONCRETE 2'-0'x1=0"x CONT (3)#5 BAR x CONT LONG. AND #5 BAR. 1'-6" TRANS AT I2•'OC WOOD T -3'x1 -3'x CONT (4)#5 BAR CONT LONG.AND#5 BARx T-9" TRANS AT I2'00 CONCRETE CONCRETE T-0"xi'-0'xCONT (3)#5 BAR CONT LONG. ANDS SARxl'-6"TRANS AT I2'OC WOOD T -3'x1 -3x COM (4)#5 BAR CONT LONG. AND BAR T-9"TRANS AT 12. OC ICF CONCRETE 2-0'xl'-0'x COM (3)#5 BAR CONT LONC, AND 15 BAR x T -VI TRANS AT I2' OC 2 FOOTING SCHEDULE SR0.3 WALL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE WALL REINFORCEMENT OPENING REINFORCEMENT NOTES WALLTYPE VERTICAL I HORIZONTAL JVEFMCAL (JAMB) I HORIZONTAL (HEADER) I #S BARAT I6' OC REINFORCEMENT PER GENERAL NOTES 1 #5 BARPER CELL OVERT -0"' 16• BOND BEAM WITI) #5 BARTOP AND BTM 3 (1)#SSARAT40"OC REINFORCEMENT PER GENERAL NOTES (1)#5BARPERCELLOVER2'-0'* IS' BOND BEAM w/(1)#5 BARTOPAND STM12 TE #4 BAR AT 1V OC #4 BAR AT IT OC (3)#S BARAT 6'OC` (1)#SBARTOPANDBTM 2 #4BARATI2 OC #4 BAR AT 12" DO (3)#5 BAR AT 6"OC• (1)#SBARTOPANDBTM 1,2 #4 BAR ATIY OC #46ARAT12.00 IREFERENC-E (3)#S BARATVCC• (1)#5 BAR TOP AND BTM 1,2 LTHICKNESS REFERS TO THE CONCRETE THICKNESS OF THE ICFWALL, NOTTHETOTALTHICKNESS OFTHEWALL NCE SPUCETABLE FOR EXTENSION OF HEADER REINFORCEMENT PAST OPENING.WALLS CAN ONLY BE USED ON SAFE ROOM58'-O'k8-O.OR SMALLER `AT T -i' WALL END, THIRD BAR MAY BESET IN ADJACENT WALL 1 i 1 WALL REINFORCEMENT SCHEDULE FEMA P-320 (2014) SHEETTI LE: TABLES DRAWING NO: SRO.3 Sheet- 4ofl2 DO NOTATTACH SHELTER - i'D" 4'-0" CENTERLINE CHLINGTOFLOOROR - CEILING ABOVE e�'; ONCRETE ROOF, SEE CONCRETE ROOF, SEE SEE SCHEDULE -#S DOWELAT 1-1 OC CONNECTOR"E•TYP, CHEDULE3/SR0.3FOR SCHEDULE 3/SR0.9 FOR ySR09 FOR SIZE AND U #5 NOSING SAP, TYP SEE SCHEDULE4tSR0.3 CEILING JOIST, SEEICKNESS & REINFORCING THICKNESS &REINFORCING REINFORCING TO FOOTING CONNECTOR'D"SEE SCHEDULE 3/SR0.3 FOR _ SCHIDULE4tSR0.3 SONG AND SPACING NOTE :: •- 2z PT RIM HOARD �o Il 7ltill� i"Il tft If�i1 a - _ _ LAP -c • - ., y: ° 3-CI.R ) ,c(�uran•nCr,�?i. 48AR AT 16"OC(SEE GENERAL BOND BEAM PER GENERAL NOTES SPLICE, .AS a' TO FOOTING BOND BFAAA w/ (1) #S IN.TURN DOWN INTO WALL 1S #4BARATiBOC (SEE GENERALSTAND RARD990 0, EGG • � n (USE 94 BAR IF USING G CEIllNG PER DETAIL 8"HOTTOM OF NOTES FOR SPUCE LETIG7HS) MIN- - _; LAP _ �" MASONRY UNITS) SHEET SR1.3 LAB(LONG) FR M OTT M OFDOWN INTO WALL ISLABSPLICEa_NOTE CMU, ICF OR CONCRETE s" BOND SEAM wt (1) #5 BARTOP v - - - - WALL PER PLAN AND BOTTOM CUSS #4 BAR IF CMU WALL PER PLAN USING 5" MASONRY UNITS) DOWELSI MATCH SEESCHIDULEZSR0.3FORSIZEAND REINFORCING 9 ALT WALL/CEILING CONNECTION a CMU SECTION AT DOOR BEAM 7 CMU SECTION AT TOP FOOTING RHNF SIZE NOTE:SPUCETOPREINFORCINGTHE SAME AS BOTTOM WHERE TOP AND SR1.D Scale 1/2 =�'-0" SRI Scale: i/2"=1=0" AND QUAMRY BOTTOMREINFORCMG tS INDICATED. SfF SCHEDULE 6t5R03 SR1 D Scale 112' =1'-0" CONTINUOUS #S BAR CONTINUOUS RHNFORCENIENI.INSAFE p TYPICAL FOOTING STEP CMU WALLBEYOND CONCRETESOG JW CONCRETE ISOLATION JOINT ROOM WALLS, PER PLAN PFR GENERALNOTES GROUI•ALL CELLS SR1.0 Scale 1/2 =1' D° BOND BEAM W/(1)#5 CONCRETE ENERALAB GRADE SOUR CONTINUOUS CONT- (USE#4 BAR IF 44 0OWELAT 24' OC PER GENERAL NOTES FINISH GRADE #5VERT BARSAT EACH V T REINFORCEMENT IN SAFE USING S" MASONRY UNITS) TO SLAB TO SLAB 1 BAR LOCATION.ALTERNATE ROOM WALLS, PER PLAN FINISH GRADE DIRECTION OF EVERYOTHERHER CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE - _ BENT �- PER GENERAL NOTES - (-- CMU WALLSiS PLAN I 1-1 Ii o •� NUOUS O U� ALT CMU INTERIOR W. Scale: l/2 =1'-0" RIENFORCEMENTNOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY T t CONTINUOUS REINFORCEMENT IN w SAFE ROOM WALLS, a n PER PLAN y C — ) z GROUTALLCEL LS SEE SCHEDULEySR0.3 BELOW GRADESOUD I,ORFOOTINGSREAND SEESCHEDULE21SR0.3 FOR REINFORCING FOOTING SIZEAND REINFORCING THICKENED SLAB 5 CMU EXTER SR1,0 Scale1/2'=1'-0" 8 -0" MAX W. 45 BAR CONT1 #4 DOWELAT24° CC _ #S VERT BARS AT EACH #S VERT BARS AT EACH VERT VERT BAR LOCATION, BARLOCATION,ALTERNATE •- ALTERNATE DIRECDON DIRECTION OF EVERY OTHER �.� OF EVERY OTHER BENTBENTHAR O SEE SCHEOULF-21SR02 BAR FOR FOOTING SIZEAND ENFORCING FOLI---ND(ATION AT DOOR CMU EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDATION SAFE ROOM 8' -O -MIN DOORSY GROUT ALL - OTHERS CELLSSOUD,- 14'-0'MAX DOORCONNECTION iYPI SRL 0 Scale: 1127 =1'-0" 14'-0° MAX -'1 MANUFACTURE NOTE i. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVA'iION SHALL BE m LESSTHANSFTAHOVELOWF57 Z RNISH[H) ADJACENT GRADEI3EVAT10N 111'00R SCHIDULEi/sRo.3FOR RHNFREQUIREMENTS 2. SEE SR03 FORSCHEDULES � m - - - - - L _ • ACL �•'• (�p[�l L REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY BELOW 3 `D 550'11 FOOTING 7518 CM'y m� CMU FOUNDATION PLAN SR1.0Rr i- v4" =1'-0° c NOTE i. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVA'iION SHALL BE m LESSTHANSFTAHOVELOWF57 Z RNISH[H) ADJACENT GRADEI3EVAT10N wz 2. SEE SR03 FORSCHEDULES � m H 2a PROVIDE (1)#5 VERTICAL SARAT EVERY CORNER AND ADJACENT CELL, TrP FEMA P-320 (2Q14) CSHEFTMDU SAFE ROOM PLANS AND DETAILS DRAWING NO: SRI_O Sh-L- 4 CIP WALL PER PLAN LAP SPLICE PER TABLE ON CONCRETEOPTION CONC SECTION AT CORNER SRI.E Scale: 112" =1'-0" CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER GENERAL NOTES LIP WALL PER PLAN 70 SLAB 2/SRSCHEDULE D30R FOOTING O 8" B" SMAND REINFORCING F-6--1 ALT CONC INTERIOR WALL THICKENED SLAB SRI.I Scale: 1/Z'= V -O" REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY �1 CONCRETE Scale: 1W = T -D' CIP WALL PER PLAN REINFORCEMENT NOT SHOWN OR CLARITY SECTION CONCRETE ROOF, SEE SCHEUDLE REINORCINGx EEE 91SRI0OR ALT WOOD ROOF CONNECTION #4BARATIB'OC(SEEGENERAL • NOTES FOR SPLICE LENGTHS) MIN. CIP WALL TURN DOWN INTO WALL tS 14" PERPL4N (LONG) FROM BOTTOM OF SLAB F-8-1 CONC SECTION AT DOOR BEAM__ SRI I I scale: l/2" = T-0" #5 BARS CONT WALLBEYOND #4 DOWELAT 24" OC CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER FINISHED GRADE GENERALNOTES TO SLAB,.-_ CIP WALL PER m PLAN + l• - CONT REINFIN SAFE ROOM a o —1 IWALLPERPLAN #5 BARSAT EACH VERT LOCATION. ALTERNATE DIRECTION OF EVERY $ TO FOOTING a Y HER BENT BAR -z OTHER :j CONCRETE ROOF, SEE SCHEDULE 3NG.S FORR1.0 FOR ALT w REINFORCING. SEE 915R1.0 FORALT WOOD ROOF CONNECTIO�N�,j�%< 44 BAR AT 1S' OC (SEE GENERAL -7� NOTES OR SPLICE LENGTHS) MIN. CIP WALL TURN DOWN INTO WALL IS 24" PER PLAN (LONG) FROM BOTTOM OFSLAS 7 CONC SECTION AT TOP SRII Scale- l/2"=1'-0" a• jrZ VT CONCRETE ISOLATION JOINT _ #5BARSCONT FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADEPER ? LIPWALLPER PLAN GENERALNOTES SR1 i 94 DOWELAT24' OC TO SCAB Midi FINISHED GRADE ' I CONT REINF N SAFE ROOM "a' w WALLPERPLAN l• r Imo.. O #5 BARS AT EACH VERT LOCATION, B'-0" MIN O ALTERNATE DIRECTION OF EVERY — — — — — — — —I I_____� - SEE SCHEDULE VSR0.3 02 a• jrZ FOR FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING SEE SCHEDULE2/SR(.3 OR ZZ_ T'+ FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING F -5--j CONC EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDATION AT DOOR CONC EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDATION SR1 i Scale:1)T =1'-0" Midi scale: 112" = T-0" ' 8'-0"MIN SAM RDOOR BY 14'-0'MAX B'-0" MIN OTHERS DOOR CONNECTION r — — — — — — — —I 14'-0"MAX REQUIREMENTSIN I ACCORDANCEW/DOOR MANUFACTURE _ - •v �t NOTE, I ► r — — — - 'v 1. FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION SHALL BE ( I• I _ LESS THAN 5 FTABOVE LOWEST FINISHED ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION ___—_—___�.I _.�._- 2. SEESRD.3FORSCHEDULES I =� •r I I 1 X11 ��1 SEE SCHEDULE 11SR0.3 . I OR REINF REQUIREMENTS I m a Fo ,r 1 I I 7777-� i� � FEMA P-320 (2014) m SHEETTCTLE: CONCRETE SAFE ROOM PLANS AND DETAILS REINORCEMENTNOT — — — 1 °- DRAWING No: SRi.1 Sheet s of SHOWN FOR CLAIM .3 FOOTING BELOW DATE DECEMBER2014 REVISIONS CONCRETE FLOOR PLAN CONCRETE FOUNDATION PLANFOUNDATION PLAN Scale- 114" = T -O" ti SEE SCHEDULE 1/SR0.3 ONS HICFOR CONC THICKNESS CONCRETE ROOF, SEESCHEUDLE CONCRETE ROOF, SEE SCHIDt n F m ' 3/SR0.3 FORTHICKNESS & 3/SR0.3 FOR THICKNESS S ym RMNFORCING. SEE S/SRI.0 FOR �NF pp ROOF CONNECTION IOOR d ALT WOOD ROOF CONNECTION ICF WALL PER PLAN LAP SPLICE PER ICFWALLPER • a TABLE ON PLAN CONCRETEOPTION #4 BARATI6' OC (SEE GENERAL 04 BAR AT 1H" OC (SID GENERAL ICF WALLPER NOTES FOR SPLICE LENGTHS) MIN. NOTES FOR SPLICE LENGTHS) MIN. PLAN TURNDOWN INTO WAL.LIS 14 TURN DOWN INTO WALL IS 24' (LONG) FROM BOTTOM OF SLAB (LONG) FROM BOTTOM OF SLAB 8 ICF SECTION AT DOOR BEAM - IICF SECTION AT TOP 9 ICF CORNER DETAIL SR1 sDale 1l2"=1=0" SR1.2 scaie:l/2"=1-0" Mill Scale -112" =1'-0" ItS BARS CONT 'l12" CONCRETE ISOLATION JOINT ICF WALLPER WALL BEYOND '44 DOWEL AT 24' OC 'VS BARS CONT PLAN CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADEPER CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER -94 DOWELAT24" OC CONT REINFIN SAFE ROOM FINISHED GRADE GENERALNOTES TO SLAB GENERALNOTES WALL PER PLAN TO SLAB FINISHED GRADE tl/5 BARS AT EACH VERT LLP� LOCATION.ALTERNATE ICF WA DIRECTION OF EVERY OTHER i ~ ICF WALL PER BENTBAR n o !CONT RSNFIN SAFE ROOM WALL PER PLAN CONT REINF IN SAFE ROOM' n n PLAN CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE N _ �S BARSAT EACHVERT LOCATION, ALTERNATE WALLPERPLAN t m p PER GENERAL NOTES O DIRECTION OF EVERY OTHER BENT BAR tS BARS AT EACH VERT LOCATION, O s TO SLAB .. LL w ALTERNATE DIRECTION Or EIT=RYBENT BAR = aTO FOOTNG TO FOOTING SEESCHBDULE21SR03 SEESCHIDULE2/SR03 IY 0" FORRE[FONG FOOTING FORFOOTINGSIZEAND SEE SCHEDULE2JSR03 FOR o REINFORCING FOOTING SIZE AND REINFORCING 6 ALT (CF INTERIOR WALL THICKENED SLAB 5 ICF EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDAT]ON AT DOOR St212 s�� 11EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDATION SR12 Scale 112" =1'-0" SR12 Scale:1lr =1' 0" LCF WALLPER PLAN I 1 l REINFORCEMENTNOT SHOWN FORCLARP[Y f 3-1 ICF CROSS SECTION 1 MAX FINISH FLOOR I B -o" MLN SAFE ROOM DOOR BY OTHERS 14'-0• MAX — -- — — -- — — — ft� 0" MAX l 14'- l DOOR CONNECTION REQUIREMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WI DOOR MANUFACTURE I _ 21 NOTE: 1. FIMSHID FLOORfl-EVATIONSHALLBE r — � — — — I LESSTHANS ET ABOVELOWEST FINISHED ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION ( I I 'e �31 2 SEE SR0.3 FOR SOHIDULES I SEE SCHEDULE 7/SR0.3 I . FCR=NF REEL 1R%ENTS _ j " FEMA P-320 (2014) w SHEETMTU= ICF SAFE ROOM PLANS AND DETAILS I �m NO: SRI Sheet: 7.f REINFORCEMENT NOT OR 6"TYP BELOW .0 w EDRA17MNG DECEMBER 2014 SHOWNFORCLARITY 4' S -!ICF G m pEVISj014S FOUNDATION PLAN CF FLOOR PLAN Copy (ght®2( .,.ire- ra ` =rpt" _ _ MAscale-114" =1'-0" DO NOT ATTACH SAFE ROOM CEILNGTO FLOOR CONNECTOR'F'SEE OR CEILING ABOVE SCHEDULE41SR03 WOOD JOIST, SEE SCHEDULE — -- CONNECTOR'ATYP, NOTE. 31SRD3 FOR MEMBER SIZE SEE SCHEDULE 4/SR0.3 INTERIOR 17'Ic: CONNECTORB(TYP)AT24` WOOD ROOF W17H EXTERIOR SHEATHtNG MOTTO BE USED ON CONCRETE, CMU, OR ICF WALLTYPES AND SPACING c ^t'�t c v" �I _ ,�, RIM JOIST OF SAFE OCAND , SEE SCHEDULE DOOR BLOCKING AT QUARTER i) { r 1 ROOM OPENING, SEE SCHEDULE DO NOTATTACH SAFE ROOM POINTS +- 7 � thk tll l -).(I f �� . DBLZ,X TOP PLATE, NO CANNECTOR'J' SEE ° DON TATTACH SAFE ROOMN43 ••��"""�� (2)IAYEiS314-PLYWOOD ?'2j Ga 7".`a dl- SPLICING PERMITTED SCNEDUI:E 4/SR03 T 29c6'NAILER CONNECTED ABOVE �— CONTINUOUS TOINSIOE ^ CONNECTORWITHIN _ w/16d NAILS AT I2"OC CORNER SPIJCE SECOND LAYER AT 24r CON14CANDTOR B CrHIN ?; WOOD JOIST. SEE SCHEDULE 14 GA STEEL SHEATHING (2)LAYERS 314* PLYWOOD i`�,y%;p OF SHEATHING HERE IF IT OF CONNECTOR °.' ) ° 31SR0.3FORMEMBERSIZE — — CONTINUOUS TO INSIDE CONTINUOUS TO INSIDE •; a*. NEEDED "J'ANDWAN12.OF QUA� �� AND SPACING CORNER CORNER c.k- SEEWOOD WALL BASE DOOROPENING ' ^ 14 GA STEEL SHEATHINGPLAN FOR WALL Z5V NAILER • }4 { ,: - s ,x s 7..= CONTINUOUS TO INSIDE �T •; REQUIREMENTS CONNECTEDw41Sd - }1t,lei: 7� i s.' CORNER NAILS AT I2"OC BLOCKING AT QUARTERv;:„:,.`au :d:vs':e: POINTS' g WOOD CEILING TE (WO FRAME SAFE ROOM ONLY), WOOD WALL CORNER PLAN B WOOD CEILING ATTACHMENT 7 589.3 Scale: 314” =1'-0" SK1 -31 Scale: 3f4" =1'-0" SR1.3 Scale:.314" =1'-0" WALL BEYOND #5 BARS CONT SEE WOOD WALLBASEPLAN --- STUD WAI-LPER PLAN 04 DOWELAT24 CC CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER GENERALNOTES _ FORWALLREQUIREMENTS SHEATHING SEE SR? -1 CONNECTOR'A"TYP AT #5 BARS CONT EACH STUD, SEE FINISHED GRADE TO SLAB ,11, CONCRETE GRADE 04DOWELAT24'OC STUD TO SILLPLATE PER GNERANERA E TO SLAB FINISHED GRADE CONNECTOR "G` CTYP) SEE 3' CONCRETE SCHEDULE 4/SR03 WALL - - '1SBARSATIH'OC 05 BARS AT IS* CC - _ #S BARS AT 18.00. ALTERNATE - v - - <#5 BARS AT 18" OC, ALTERNATE ,,y^,,. (I) LAYER 3/4' PLYWOOD DIRECTION OF EVERY OTHERBENT BAR = DIRECTION OF EVERY OTHER BENT BAR 2 O LAYERS 314' �, TO FOOTING Tv 8'CONCRETE PLYWOOD SEE SR21 ry(,%�= _ WALL `•' TO FOOTING CONNECTOR'S'TYPAT- 24"OCAND WAN 127OF DOOR OPENING, SEE DBL2WSTUDSAT 2 12" OG NAILED AT - - 41SR0.3 S" OC, STAGGERED - 143ASTEEL �' ON EACH SIDEw1 - %� 1Sd NAILS z SEE SCHEDUCE2/SR03 SEE SCHEDULE 21SR03 d SHEATHING "' FORFOOTINGSIZEAND FORPOOTINGSIZEAND ` COMWUOUS SEESR2.1 " ��,-_,' m REINFORCING REINFORCING ' WOOD EXTERIOR WALL FOUNDATION AT DOOR —T WALL FOUNDATION g WOOD WALL BASE PLAN VIEW 5 FOOD le: 11Z —EXTERIOR SR13 Scale- 34'= V -O" SR1.3 scale: lt2" =1'-0" SAFE ROOM DOOR BY OTHERS 14• - 0" MAX NOTE 1_ FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION SHALL BE 14'-0"MAX _ _ _ _ — _ — —1 LESS TRANS FT ABOVE LOWEST v FINISHED ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION d BLOCKING AT MAX DOORCONNECTION IN _ 2. SEE SR03 FOR SCHEDULES QU RTE POINTSMANUFACTURE _ .... ACCORDANCEwtDOOR B SIM _ BLOCKING AT 3 SHEATHING JOINT LOCATIONS, REFERTO I - - - _j_ - -------- I I SR73 SHEATHING REQUIREMENTS SHEET g si c o j;�. I .• o �, 1 4 2z6 STUDS t I 141 ACH SIDE OF $ LOCATEDOOR la zir I - I I I DOOR ALONG LONGEST k FEMA P-320 (2014) WALL1 `; _ _ _7 Woo D� NISH FLOOR I , I E SAFE ROOM PLANS AND DETAILS I REINFORCEMENT FORCEM NT - " _ I DRAWING NO: SR1.3 Sheet: 8x(12 « : _ NOTSHOWN CITY -� T `FOOTING BELOW Davie DECEMBER 2094 ItFlISI0N5 WOOD FLOOR PLAN 1 WOOD FRAME FOUNDATION PLAN 3 WOOD CROSS SECTION 2 Decvd9ht©2014 ISRU = T-0" SR1.3 SR13 care -11d" =1,-n" Scale: IW #S BARS CONT CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER GENERALNOTES I _ TO SLAB 1, DO NOTATTAGH SAht KW M �r�uttia TO FLOOROR CEILING ABOVE __—_--- SEE WOOD 1 CMU WOOD JOIST, SEE SCHEDULEWSR03 II INTERIOR ; l II' INFILL WALL BASE WALL 2x RIM JOIST t OFSAFE :III„ PLAN FOR REQUIREMENTS DRYSTACKED ROOM CONNECTORB(iYP) - CMU FILLER, NOT AT SIM CONNEOTOR".I'SEE ' SCHEDULE41SR0.3 n AT24" OC 2W NNI1�CO17'O�D _ (2) LAYERS 314• PLYWOOD IIS CONNECTOR "B" TM _ —o STUD TO SILLPLATE{ INTERIOR r OF SAFE AT24'OCANDWTTHIN IY OF CONNECTOR _ a QUAD Yx6' CORNER ROOM "J" SEE SCHEDULE —' �'— STUDS (3) y�; HEADERw/ (2)117 2W NAILER WALL REQUIREMENTS LAYERS OF PLYWOOD _ CONNECTED wl 16d I III SEE WOOD ICMU INFILL NAILS AT 12" OC 1t3-FURRNG STRIP Ili DENTS WALL REQUIREMENT WALL KNISH - B WOOD / CMU INFILL DOOR HEAD g WOOD /CMU INFILL CORNER PLAN SR21 SR1.4 Scale: 3/4" =1'-0" #4 DOWELAT24' OC 881.4 SGale:3/4 =1' 0" #S BARS CONT CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER GENERALNOTES I _ TO SLAB 1, DO NOTATTAGH SAht KW M �r�uttia TO FLOOROR CEILING ABOVE __—_--- --CONNECTOR'F"SEE WOOD JOIST, SEE SCHEDULEWSR03 WALLBEYOND 6' SOUD MASONRY 2x RIM JOIST CONNECTOR 'A TYP, SEE #4 DOWELAT24' OC DRYSTACKED SCHEDULE41SRO3 SCHEDULE41SR0.3 SPLICE SECOND LAYER VERTICALLY OFSHEATHNG HERE IF NEEDED (2) LAYERS 314• PLYWOOD IIS FINISHED GRADE STUD TO SILLPLATE{ , , •, I I II, (2) LAYERS 314" 14GASTEELSHEATHING I 1 CONNECTOR'G"(TYP) CONTINUOUSTCORNER iI PLYWOODSEES2.1 WALL REQUIREMENTS SEE SCHEDULE 41SR0.3 214 scale: 314" =1'-0" I III SEE WOOD ICMU INFILL WCO[4CRETE I/S' FURRING STRIP Ili DENTS WALL REQUIREMENT WALL KNISH - WALL ATTACH TO FACE OF SR21 CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER #4 DOWELAT24' OC DBL 2x6 CONNECTOR"B'TYP AT t FINISHED GRADE TO FOOTING 24' 00, AND WAN I2" OF I'll WALL DOOROPENINGS,SEE - f t DBL 7kG STUDS AT -Ir OC, SCHEDULE 4/580.3 NAILED AT 6" OC, STAGGERED ON EACH SIDEw/ I6d NAILS (1) LAYER314"iI I', I 1 i NOTE: PLYWOOD USE EXPANSION FOAM TO FILL �I� I ALLSPACESAROUND CMU DBL2x6 SILL PLATE #S BARS CONT CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER GENERALNOTES I _ TO SLAB 1, DO NOTATTAGH SAht KW M �r�uttia TO FLOOROR CEILING ABOVE __—_--- --CONNECTOR'F"SEE WOOD JOIST, SEE SCHEDULEWSR03 SCHEDULE41SRD3 FOR MEMBER SIZE AND SPACING 2x RIM JOIST BLOCKINGATQUARTER�!' �a��" e t -a CONNECTOR A SEE POINTS + ILS } I SCHEDULE41SRO3 SPLICE SECOND LAYER i OFSHEATHNG HERE IF NEEDED (2) LAYERS 314• PLYWOOD IIS CONTINUOUSTIN DE • Il 111 CO 0BL2WTOPPLATE.N0 •, I I II, SPLICING PERMITTED 14GASTEELSHEATHING I 1 SEE WOODICMUNFTLL CONTINUOUSTCORNER WALL BASE PLAN FOR WALL REQUIREMENTS 7 WOOD / CMU INFILL CEILING ATTACHMENT 214 scale: 314" =1'-0" SEE WOOD ICMU INFILL WALL BASE PLAN FOR 6" SOLID MASONRY DRY DENTS WALL REQUIREMENT STACKED VERTICALLY SHEATHING SEE #S BARS CONT SR21 CONCRETE SLAB ON GRADE PER #4 DOWELAT24' OC GENERALNOTES TO SLAB FINISHED GRADE rCONCRETE WALL H I I-P� DIRECTION OF 4S BARS AT IV OEVERY OT ESR BENT BAR SEESCHEDULE 21SR03 FORSIZE z AND REINFORCING . g m #S BARSATIB" OC #5 BARS AT I6" OC, ALTERNATE DIRECTION OF EVERY OTHER BENT SEE SCHEDULER FOR SIZE AND SIZE AND REINFORCING I BELOW BLOCK FND g WOOD 1 CMU INFILL BASE PLAN 5 -WOOD / CMU INFILL EXTERIOR WALL FND AT DOOR • 4 WOOD ICMU INFILL EXTER[OR WALL SR14 Scale 3/4" =1'-0" SRI scale: 11T = T-0"SR14 scale 1t2" =1'-T 1.-0' MIN 6'- D" MIN 14•- 0" MAX �F32'`t.( ":'-^::C^=r^--•:% �' F ''i. +".��-' `. ` TO WALL 14•-0' MA% OTHERS FROOM DOOR BY — _ — — — — — Er1 c al Mme' r DOOR CONNECTION HLOCKNG AT i i I I T I1 _RQUMNTS IN QUARTER DOOR MANUFACTURE POINTS _ I i _ 1 (4)2x6STUDS 5 t __ 1 c c 1 I Rt. I I EACH SIDE OF 14 ' LOCATE DOOR I „ R OOR ALONG LONGW _ ALL F1MSH FLOOR I i I I ' REINFORCEMENT'NOT - - _ SHOWN FOR CLARI Y L — — — — — —— J � FOOTING BELOW ___.jWOOD /CMU INFILL CROSS SECTION 2 WOOD / CMU INFILL FLOOR PLAN SR1.4 FOOD / CMU INFILL FOUNDATION PLAN SRI Alscale: 114" =1'-0" NOTE 1. FINISHEDFLOORELEMATIONSHALLBE LESS THAN S FTABOVE LOWEST FINISHED ADJACENT GRADE ELEVATION 2- SEE SRO3 FOR SCHEDULES FEMA P-320 MU INRLL FRAME SAFE ROOM AND DETAILS SRI A CMU, ICF, OR - REINFORCE INTERSECTION CONCRETE SAFE ROOM VERTICALLY wl 45 BARS AT IV OC, WOOD SAFE ROOM WALL CONNECTWOOD rZ DIAA C WALL WALL INSERT INTO EACH WALL.MIN 24• TO TS W 24" OC, I 21/3' HOR - BOLTS AT 24"OC, MIN 21/8' EMBEDMENT (EXPANSION OR EPDXY SET) REINFORCE WALLA REINFORCE WALLA MINIMUM - MINIMUM OF 1=0' BEYOND OF 1-0" BEYOND SAFE ROOM SAFE ROOM INTERIOR WALL INTERIOR WALL 5 ALTERNATIVE CMU SAFE ROOM TO FOUNDATION WALL SR .5 ALTERNATIVE WOOD SAFE ROOM TO FOUNDATION WALL SR1.5 Spate: 912" = I'-0" CONNECTOR EACH JOIST CONNECTOR 'H"EACH PAIR"H" SEESCHEDUL.E JOIST PAIR SEE SCHEDULE r- BOND BEAM BY OTHERS 4ISR0.3 41SRD.3 2'X72" PT LEDGER BOARD SAFE ROOM CEILING ATTACHED TO FOUNDATION SAFE ROOM CEILING TO F PT LEDGER BOARD ATTACHED SYSTEM PER PLAN WALLS WITH 1/2• EXPANSION OR SYSTEM PER PLAN TO FOUNDATION WALLS WITH 12" EPDXY A.B.TO RESIST 1,300 LBS, SHEETS RESIST 1,300 LBS INSTALL AANS T IS" OC INSTALLAT 18" OC `=1 I I—Eli— CONNECTOR"C•SEE '�' I L CONNECTOR"C`SEE SCHEDULE4/SR0.3 a" BEAMw/(1)R5HAR SCHEDULE 41SR0.3 - AT BEARING ELEVATION CAST IN PLACE CONCRETE WALL.AND FOOTING BY OTHERS MINIMUM REINF SHALL BE 115 BARS AT24' VERTICAL REINFORCET:MEN7 MINIMUM REINF SHALL BE#4 VERTICAL REINFORCEMENT OC VERTICALLY. INSTALL HORIZONTAL CONTINUOUSTOFOOTING SARSAT IT' OC, EW, FULL _ CONTINUOUSTO FOOTING REINFORCING PER GENERAL NOTES. AND PROPERLY INTEGRATED HEIGHT, CONSULTWI LOCAL AND PROPERLY INTEGRATEDO GENERAL NOTES, CONSULTwI LOCAL w/ FOO TING RE(NFORCEMEM' PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR wt FOOTING ADDITIONAL REINFORCEMENT PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER FOR CRMUUA FOR NON SAFE ROOM ADDITIONAL REINFORCEMENT CRITERIA CMU WALL (8" MN) AND LOADS - FOR NON SAFE ROOM LOADS FOOTING BY OTHERS G E=j ALTERNATIVE CIP FOUNDATION ELEVATION S L1 Scale: 11r = I`-0" 2 ALTERNATIVE CMU FOUNDATION ELEVATION SR1.5 Scale: 1/2 =1`-0" -0" MIN REINFORCED CMU AND CONCRETE WALLS I� FCEILING DETAILS 1 CORNER SAFEROOM PARTIAL PLA[ SR15 scale: Ila' = T -o" FEMA P-320 {2014) SHEET17RL E: DETAILS FOR SAFE ROOMS THAT USE SR'1.5 E 3RD LAYER=14 GAGESTEEL SHEATHING, PRE-DRILLAND SECUREwf#Bx3' WOOD DECK SCREWS OR 16d NAILS, SPACED PER SHEATHING ATTACHMENTSCHEDUL.E Scale. 30= V -O" SRO LAYER 4F_ATHING ATTACHMENT PATTEF 3RD LAYER=314" PLYWOOD, SECURED WI 114'x3' SELF TAPPING SCREWS OR DRILL AND SECURHwl #8x3" WOOD DECKSCREWS OR l6d NAILS, SPACED PER SHEATHING ATTACHMENT SCHEDULE 2ND LAYER =3/4" PLYWOOD. MINIMALLY SECURED wt ItV x 1112" SELF -TAPPING SCREWS OR DRILLAND SECUREwI#6x 1 JW WOOD DECKSCREWS OR Bd NAILS TO HOLD IN PLACE FOR 2NO LAYER ` TION LAYERS ON INTERIOR OF Si 2ND LAYER =314" PLYWOOD, MINIMALLY SECURED w1114' x 1110 SELF -TAPPING SCREWS OR DRILL AND SECURE w/#6x 1 V2" WOOD DECK SCREWS OR 8d NAILS TO HOLD IN PLACE 3RD LAYER PLYWOOD SHEATHING ATTACHMENT PATTERN )1 Scale_ 3/S" = P-0" SHEATHING LEGEND rc�c®1St LAYER INTERIOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING 3rd LAYER EXTERIOR PLYWOOD SHEATHING 2nd LAYER PLYWOOD SHEATHING 3rd LAYER INTERIOR STEEL SHEATHING 1st LAYER EXTERIOR STEEL SHEATHING 2ND LAYER ON D 1STLAYtR =E ROOM w x � c w x m J Q 3 1STLAYER . IR OF SAFE ROOM NOTE _ 1. SHEATHING NTVARIES BASED ON WALL LENGTH, ATTACHMENTSCHEDULE FOR PROPER SPACING. SEE 2 PROTECTION LAYERS ARE TO BE INSTALLED ALTERNATING THE LONG AXIS OF THE MATERIAL FROM HORIZONTAL TO VERMCAL- 3. MINIMUM UNBROKEN WALL LENGTH IS T-6% 4. WITH CMU INFlLL OPTION, OMIT STEEL LAYER AND INSTALL 2ND LAYER PER ATTACHMENT OF FINAL LAYER REQUIREMENTS S. MINIMUM SHEATHING PIECE WIDTH OFT- B". EXCEPTION: SECOND LAYER OF DETML1/SR21 MAY REQUIRE UPPER SHEATHING PIECEWIDTHTO BE T", 63/4", OR 10-3/4 DEPENDING ONJOISTDEPTH. EATHING MAY BE INST_ & SNGGL.EE LAYERTO BE INSTALLEDOONNSIDE OPPOSITE FOR AZEEFACE IBL2xBTOP PLATE ISTLAYER=3/4 PLYWOOD, WNIMALLY SECURED w[IW x 3" SELF -TAPPING SCREWS OR DRILL AND SECURE Wt#8 x3"WOODDECKSCREWS OR Bd NAILSTO HOLD IN PLACE 2x6 SOLID WOOD BLOCKING AT PLYWOOD JOINTS OBL24 STUDS SPACED PER PLANS DBL24BOTTOM PLATE IM JOIST 81.24TOPPLATE IST LAYER= 14 GAGE STEEL >HEATHING, MINIMALLY ;ECURED wl 1W x T' SELF - TAPPING SCREWS OR DRILL AND SECUREwI#6x1 1@" WOOD DECK SCREWS OR Ed NAILS TO HOLD IN PLACE 2x6 SOLD WOOD BLOCKING AT PLYWODDJOINTS DSL2x6 STUDS SPACED PER PLANS DBL2x6 BOTTOM PLATE FEMA P-320 (2014) SHE - Hl HS EATHING REQUIREMENTS &\HOOD FRAMI SAFE ROOM WITH STEEL SHEATHING DRAWING NO: SR2.1 Sheetll c TORNADO RESDEW ALSAFE ROOM PASSIVE VENTILATION TORNADO SAFE ROOM OCCUPANCY PASSNE VENTILATION AREA REQUIRED MINMUM NUMBER OF PIPE VENTS (W CHES SO UARED) PER DETAILI t 4' 2 2 4" 2 3 6. 2 4 6.. 3 5 t0" 4 6 12" 4 7 14" 5 B 16" 6 9 10'• 6 7n ZD'• 7 11 2Y' 6 12 24" 6 13 26" 0 1426" 9 15 30" 10 16 32" 11 'PER ICC 500 SECTION 7021 EXCEPTION, AIR INTAKE OPENINGS) MUST BE INSTALLED AMINIMUM OF 72- ABOVE SAFE ROOM FLOOR WHEN INSTALLED ONLY IN UPPER PORTION, EXCEPTION REOUIRES4 SQUARE INCHES PER OCCUPANT "PASSIVE VENTILATION AREA PER ICC 500 SECTION 7021 AND ASSUMES AIR INTAKE OPENINGS ARE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE UPPER AM LOWER PORTIONS OF SAFE ROOM AS SPECIFIEDT}EREW. AREA AND RESULTING NUMBER OF VENTS REQUIRED MUST BE DOUBLED WHEN AIR INTAKE OPENINGS ARE INSTALLED EXCLUSIVELY W THE UPPER PORTION AS PROVIDED PER IXCEPTION IN SECTION 7021. CONSULT Wt LOCAL BUILDING OFFICVLAND REFER TO ICC 500 SECTION 306.3 AND 306.4 FOR OPENING PROTECTIVE REQUIREMENTS V DIAPIPE VENTILATED 'OUTSIDE SAFE ROOM SPACE WITH ELBOW FACING DOWN SAFE ROOM WALL PLACE PIPE FLUSH WTTH INSIDE WALL SURFACE INTERIOR J OFSAFE ROOM PASSIVE VENTILATION DETAIL FOR EXTERIOR WALL S - Scale: 314" =1=0" I FEMA P-320 (2014) /VENTILATION DETAILS SR2.2 GENERALNOTFS• TYPE OFSHELTER.RA7DENTIALTORNADOSHELTER THE TORNADO SHELTER OUTLINED IN THE SPECIFICATIONS AND DRAWINGS IS COMPLIANT"TH THEFOLLOWING_ ICC500 2008 EDITION; STANDARD FORTHEDESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OFSTORMSHELTERS • FEMA320,3RDEDIITON,AUGUST20D8;TAHINGSHELTERFROMTHESTORM 2005 ASCE7 USABLEAREA3OSQFf OCCUPANTLOAD=10 PERSONS VENT REQUIREMENTS=MDMAUM40 SQIN MISSILE CRITERIA. VERTICALSOO MPH,HORTZONTALfiI MPH SHELTER SHALL HAVC• AMINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10 FEETFROM PROPERTYLINESANDADIACENT B(ULDINGS Cl- COVER PAGE SI- INTERIOR SECTION S2- EXTERIOR ELEVATION S3- INSTALL ELEVATION DETAIL S4- LOCK MECH_ DETAIL THIS SHELTER HAS NOT BEEN ANALYZED FOR HYDROSTATIC OR HYDRODYNAMIC WATERPRESSURESAND ISNOT RECOMMENDED FORUSEIN AFLOOD PRONEAREA_ THISSHEiTERREQUIRES 27CUBIC YARDS OFCONCRELETOPROVIDERAI ASTWEIGHT THIS SHELTER IS NOT DESIGNED TO SUPPORTVEHICLE WEIGHT DESIGN LOADS: L ALLOWABLESTRESS METHOD USED TO CALCULATE RESISTANCE. Z LTVELOADS-FLOOR100PSF, ROOF too PSF 3. WIND DESIGNCONFORMSTOTHLPROVISIONSOFTHE ICC/NSSA STANDARDFORTHEDESIGNANDCONSI7?UC7'IONOF=RMSEELTERS,200SEDMON. A. BASIC WIND SPEED -V-250 MPH B. WIN DIMPORTANCEFACTOR- I=L O C. WIND EXPOSURE CATEGORY -C WELDING SPECIFICATIONS D. DI2ECTIONALITYFACCUR--IM.LO E. TOPOGRAPHICFACTOR-RD=10 L -ALL SEAMS WILL BE WELDED WITH !8 " F. HEIGHTADJUSTMENTFACTOR EZ 85 CONTINUOUS G. ENCLOSURE CLASSIFICATION-PARTIALPERFEMA IL INTERNALPRESSURECOEFFICIENT-GCPI=JSS ALL REINFORCEMENT WELDS ARE Ya L 3ASICWINDPRESSORRgH=136PSF FILLET WELD 3"-12" ON CENTER J. TOPOGRAPHIC -IM -1 K DIRECTIONALITYFACTORS-M--i L. RAINLOAD-OPSF»�. MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS: ALL STEEL PLATINGSHALLCONFORM TOAMERICAN11CSfITUTE OFSTEELCONSCRUCiION (AISC) ASD 13TH EDITION. CHANNELS AND ANGLESSHALLBEASTMA36. PLATEAND BARSHALLBEASTMA36. WELDINGELECTRODESSHALLBEE70XXOREQUAL. ALL BOLTS SHALL BE A MINIMUM GRADE 5 ZINC COATED TO RISISf CORROSION. ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLY WITH GUIDELINES REQUIRED FORICC500 AND FEMA320. EXTERIOR SHALL BE COATED WITH COAL TAR EPDXYINTERIORSHALLBEPREPARED AND PAINT SHALL BESHERWINWILLLA KEM4 PRIMER WITH KEM LUSTRAL ENAMEL GLOSS WHITETOP COAT. 4 -7 -144 - CC 0�� Arno lom sz¢ Q �¢ �nYrt R x a F �:). P. *,,4-0� ioraeuxceaacrixm rNoww.sN�ramxenm DOORIA71i/W124:iv Wl191lDa'FD _� aa�crnracwanmro ROLLER TRACK DETAIL CUT AWAY VIEW ylT=R1l= -'--s:-smarcmae UtdM rt� ao- oma.. IMF[ANGEBE rIM ! ENDWALLSHEETTURN®IN TOKEEPTNES M UWSKeeW MKARYLOOC INMWLDO'® IOGAROLLEP.FFAME I / WHDED WtR! `/e^FILLET t � / WHD2"7P ON 039TE1t 20 �� " VENIItATION GAPFIXL AFS ATDF1t.OF325QUAAE DOORDDDR AOLf.SfEO_SIDUiG II,,,,P=2DSQUFRE 3'-10" u FROMIVEFAN FORAALLTOGETHER TOFALOFE25QUARE njas 41 2DSQUAPrzDK ESOF VBiTLAnM FOR FAN DY TOP VIEW CKMNL=TABS zgw,,"ANGiS BOTTOM SIDE TOP SIDE DOOR DETAIL 2X `,s"SLIDII4GDDOR SIDE VIEW EXTERIOR ELEVATION '' M -C Y- 7,1'q o< e THE HOLE WILL SE m" I)Fm INSTALL ELEVATION DETAIL END VIEW :2= �m ¢=o QOM wO U, SZ< zmc Z)O4 WF U' w.ri.1 of ,�- 111 S3 y- 7- t4 F UVVS700LBOX ATTACHED W n FOUR Ye pop Rl K Siffi_SMINGDOOR MELSTRIKERTAB WELDED WITH % 19111=7 CONTINUOUS PRIMARY LOCK SIDE VIEW TWO did` CHAD THEN CONNEM A SLOT IN THE %rt STEEL SLIDING DOOR - %" SIFE& swTTID BRAQKT 0 WELDED WAH Y° FILLET WELD CONTINOUS SECONDARY LOCKS SIDE VIEW LOCK BRACKET END VIEW LOCK MECH. DETAIL GENERALNOTES• _ TYPE OF SHELTER RESIDENTIALTORNADO SHELTER THE TORNADO SHELTER OUTL'MD INTHESFECIFICATIONSAND DRAWIMGS IS COMPLJMT WPPH,THEFbLLOW WG_ • ICCSD020DEEDITION, STANDARD FOR THE DESIGNAND CONSTRUCTION OFSTORMMMTLW _ • FEMA320,3RDEDMON,AUGUST2008;TARINGSHELTERFROMM.STORM • 20110110 BUILDING CODE _ • _ • 200SASCE7 . USABIX kM=I2SQFT - OCCUPANT LOAD=4PERSONS - VENTREQUIREMENTS=M NIMUM20 SQIN • 'MMSH.ECRITERIA:VERTICAL-100 MPH•HORIZONTA1,67MPH _ fiHISSEnTERHASNOTBEENANALYZEDFORHYDROSTATICORWMRODYNAMICWATERPREiS.URESANDLSNOTRECOMMENDED'FORUSEINAbLOODPRDNEAREA. - DESIGN LOADS. L ALL6wJiBLE STRESS M9CHOD USED TO CALCULATERESIS'PANCG _ • 7- LIVELOADS-FLOORIDOPSF,R00F100P5F•'=•'•` • 3. WINDDESIGNCONFORMSTOTHEPROVISIONSOFTHEICCjNSSA sWDARDFOHTkSD&.SIGNRNDCOKSTRUCI70NOFSTORbf=TERS,200EEDMON. A. HASIC WIND SPEED-V=ZSO MPH - B. WINDIMPORTANCEFALTOR--7=L0' - C ' WIND EXPOSURE CATEGORY -C D. DIRECTIONALITYFACTOR XD=LO E. TOP6GRAPHICFAGTOR-IO)=L0 _ F. HEIGHT ADJUSTMENT FACTOR-I¢=BS G.'ENCLOSURECLASSIFICATIONPARTIALPERFEMA IL INTERNALPRESSURE COEFFICIENT- GCP1=+J-SS ' - L BASICWIND PRESSURE-QH=136 PSF - - WELDINGSPECIFICATI()NS J. TOPOGRAPHIC -161=1 X DMECTIONALITYFACTORS.RD--1 —ALLSEAM3 WII,LBEWELDID WITH 3 L RAINLOAD�PST FILLETWELD. MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS: - STIFFENERS W.II.L BE %6" FILLET WELDS 3"-18" ON CENTER • L ALLSTEELPLATING SHALL CONFORMTOAMERICANHNSTITUTEOrSI CONSTRUCTION (AISC)ASD13THEDITION. 7- • CHANNELSANDANGIMSHALLHEASTMA36. Cl't/,q . 3. PLATEANDBARSHALLBEASTMA36. ft� 4. WELDING ELECTRODES SHALL BEE70XX OR EQUAL . - ' 7C G«TF/� x •-3.-ALLHDLTSSHALLHEAMINIMOMGRADE SZINC COATED TORESISTCORAOSION: 8. ANCHOR BOLTS SHALLBI:l7WREDHEA03/'RI%•WEDGE-STYI.I:ANCHORSANDSHALL SETORQUEDTO MANUFACf[TREASSPHCIFICATIONS. fd0• 719, 9 7. ,CONCRETEFOUNDATIONSHALLBM EMUM4 2500PSL 0 H.' ALL MATERIALS SHALL COMPLYWITH GUIDELINES REQUIRED FORICCS00 AND FEMA320. ' . 9. UNIT WILL BE POWDER COATED INTERIORANDEUMORWITHSOPERDURABLEPOLYES ERPOWDEji l�il • O - " z ¢woo - 10o0 < - w�0W tml�s aut Numbs x LE �a� on .¢woo coU3 An P-•¢d • ai«E1iW�LY • hs" HOT ROLLED PLATE 17., OT ROLLED PLATE GA HOT ROLLED EL STIFFENER WELDED . TRIPLEACIION LOCK - 18" ON CENTER WLTF{ FILLEf WELD rS+LEACTION LOCK . .. - OT ROLLSTF.E- B" BARRELHQJGEFENERWELDS ON CENTER H 3Q- FII.LEr WELD - "LOQONGPIN 0GALOCKING LOQaNGPIN SLIDE DOOR DETAIL 'DOOR DETAIL E TERIOR INTERIOR -%" HOT ROLLSTEEL 10 GA HOT ROLLED . STEEL. SU.TENER - • - 5�e HOT ROLLED PLATE " BARREL HINGE . DOOR DETAIL��Is� TOP VIEW x J �zz awc, Q�oo - I O = °- ¢c wixQEn EnQ!�= �uLNmihr - .. BENCH S ROLLED STEEL _ r Zrr _ %6" HOT ROLLED PLATE DOOR BEZEL AND STIFFENER HOT ROLLED PLATE _ VENT SHROUD. • _ . _ -- : TOP VIEW T OR� OPVIEW ��,ST! ..'INTERIOR 140. IT PPO I ... (WITHOUT ROOF). QIM OF} F 2 - =moo 1 0 w a M=00 vi r ¢ F- • ten,. • . .. .. E ShaF Num6r ' jff t rlln --moi *FOUNDATION IS THE RESPON8` OFIHEIN ALLER .: •� ;, . :: - :: = • OPTION 'A *MINII•tUM REQMEMENTS Apr •' h 'r • .. •... � + - PERSHELTERNAMFACil1RER FWNDID .7IdN • - Y4. a, • -•e .. � f - • • �� .. - - X�� ERF x No. 17M wnuSTEEL NGi% 5? ITWRED HEAD TRUROLT,SPACED PANEL • �; 12, O.G MAX •d A I .. d a d a. mmymm • r • " a . . FOUNDATION DETAIL F w • o r~n mm 0 c� KKol - q.n.css - - tbd./4H , 1 111 *FOUNDATIONISTHE min pmpoNmnny OFTHEINSTALLER OPTION B'*MIND" P D,� � . .:4 ... • ,k�i /71f1 `'• '.a: FbUNDATiON i ' Gr�GRG STEgFO 1 949 S /s" SrEEt - FNGINEti� 9� - WALL PAM • . Lp KpyJ • '. 1�g2'"0 C ASC. RED HFAD-rmioLT, SPACED .. _ n r� 1�•. •d.'; 4 A. Al 4 • - Td1:KMC55.7YP •� q C «. ^rmt4 Q " -ALL SfMGC q . - .. r •a' . • •ate' ,d .• d d d FOUNDAMON DETAIL e ~ I Ld - n w I N-1zo S5 3wG NCaDw• • ORDINANCE NO.: 2018 -XX CITY OF OTSEGO COUNTY OF WRIGHT, MINNESOTA AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE CITY CODE REPEALING THE REQUIREMENT FOR STORM SHELTERS WITHIN RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF OTSEGO DOES HEREBY ORDAIN: Section 1. Section 11-17-12 of the City Code (General Yard, Lot Area, and Building Regulations -- Storm Shelters) is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. This Ordinance shall become effective immediately upon its passage and publication. MOTION BY: SECOND BY: ALL IN FAVOR: THOSE OPPOSED: ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this 14th day of January, 2019. ATTEST: Tami Loff, City Clerk 1 CITY OF OTSEGO BY: Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor OtCI�ezoF MINNESOTA V APPLICANT: Capstone Harvest Run, LLC 9 Jan 19 FINDINGS & DECISION AMENDMENT(DENIAL) APPLICATION: Request for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to modify or repeal Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 14 January 2019 FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the Otsego City Council now makes the following findings of fact: A. Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a storm shelter be provided within all slab -on -grade residential dwellings constructed on lots preliminary platted after 26 September 2016. B. The applicant is requesting amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to modify the Zoning Ordinance to make optional the provision of a storm shelter within slab -on -grade residential dwellings or repeal the requirement in its entirety. C. The Planning Commission and City Council must take into consideration the possible effects of the request with their judgment based upon (but not limited to) the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance: The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The following policies guide the Planning Commission and City Council in the formulation and implementation of requirements for residential development set forth by the Zoning Ordinance: ■ Justification to amend the Comprehensive Plan (or Zoning Ordinance) to allow uses or activities not guided for or allowed shall be consistent with long-term community goals and not solely short term market demand or potential. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 20) Adhere to the highest community design, planning and construction standards for all new residential development. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 23) Establish specific Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards for development of twin homes, townhouses and multiple family uses to ensure quality and innovation in construction and site design, as well as consistent application of development requirements. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 24) The City determined that provision of a storm shelter is a minimum requirement for all slab -on -grade dwellings to protect public health safety and welfare in Otsego. The developer's request to modify or repeal the storm shelter requirement for slab -on - grade dwellings is based solely on economic considerations for the construction of the initial building. There are several options available to provide for a storm shelter within slab -on -grade dwellings in lieu of constructing a basement. The storm shelter options are a minimum of one-quarter of the cost of a basement based on the developer's narrative. The market considerations offered by the developer must be weighed against the long-term public health safety and welfare benefit of the storm shelter requirement implemented by the City. The developer's request is not consistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the purpose of the storm shelter requirement to protect public health safety and welfare set forth by Section 11- 1-2 of the Zoning Ordinance. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed amendment will not affect land use compatibility. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within this title and other provisions of this Code. Finding: The proposed amendment will apply to all slab -on -grade dwellings in accordance with the policy of the Comprehensive Plan that development regulations be applied consistently and uniformly. 4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: The proposed amendment will not affect traffic generation for residential dwellings. 5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: Provision of a storm shelter serves to reduce risk of injury or death of residents during severe weather events in consideration of the vulnerability of slab - on -grade dwellings. The additional protection for these residents offered by a storm shelter can reduce the potential demand for emergency response services during a severe storm event when such services are most burdened. The requested amendment may, therefore, negatively affect City service capacities. D. The planning report dated 29 November 2018 prepared by the City Planner, The Planning Company LLC, is incorporated herein. E. The Otsego Planning Commission opened a public hearing at their regular meeting on 3 December 2018 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice; based upon review of the application and evidence received, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended by a 6-0 vote that the City Council deny the request based on the aforementioned findings. DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the request is hereby APPROVED, in the form of the draft ordinance presented by City staff. 2 MOTION BY: SECOND BY: ALL IN FAVOR: THOSE OPPOSED: ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this 14th day of January, 2019. Attest: Tami Loff, City Clerk 3 CITY OF OTSEGO By: Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor 0 CI OtSezTY F O MINNESOTA V APPLICANT: Capstone Harvest Run, LLC 9 Jan 19 FINDINGS & DECISION AMENDMENT(APPROVAL) APPLICATION: Request for a Zoning Ordinance amendment to modify or repeal Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance. CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 14 January 2019 FINDINGS: Based upon review of the application and evidence received, the Otsego City Council now makes the following findings of fact: A. Section 11-17-12 of the Zoning Ordinance requires a storm shelter be provided within all slab -on -grade residential dwellings constructed on lots preliminary platted after 26 September 2016. B. The applicant is requesting amendment of the Zoning Ordinance to modify the Zoning Ordinance to make optional the provision of a storm shelter within slab -on -grade residential dwellings or repeal the requirement in its entirety. C. The Planning Commission and City Council must take into consideration the possible effects of the request with their judgment based upon (but not limited to) the criteria outlined in Section 20-3-2.F of the Zoning Ordinance: The proposed action's consistency with the specific policies and provisions of the City Comprehensive Plan. Finding: The following policies guide the Planning Commission and City Council in the formulation and implementation of requirements for residential development set forth by the Zoning Ordinance: ■ Justification to amend the Comprehensive Plan (or Zoning Ordinance) to allow uses or activities not guided for or allowed shall be consistent with long-term community goals and not solely short term market demand or potential. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 20) Adhere to the highest community design, planning and construction standards for all new residential development. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 23) Establish specific Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance standards for development of twin homes, townhouses and multiple family uses to ensure quality and innovation in construction and site design, as well as consistent application of development requirements. (2012 Otsego Comprehensive Plan, page 24) The City determined that provision of a storm shelter is a minimum requirement for all slab -on -grade dwellings to protect public health safety and welfare in Otsego. The developer's request to modify or repeal the storm shelter requirement for slab -on - grade dwellings is based solely on economic considerations for the construction of the initial building. There are several options available to provide for a storm shelter within slab -on -grade dwellings in lieu of constructing a basement. The storm shelter options are a minimum of one-quarter of the cost of a basement based on the developer's narrative. The market considerations offered by the developer must be weighed against the long-term public health safety and welfare benefit of the storm shelter requirement implemented by the City. The need for a storm shelter based on potential risks inherent to a slab -on -grade dwelling is best determined by the buyer and building at the time of construction. 2. The proposed use's compatibility with present and future land uses of the area. Finding: The proposed amendment will not affect land use compatibility. 3. The proposed use's conformity with all performance standards contained within this title and other provisions of this Code. Finding: The proposed amendment will apply to all slab -on -grade dwellings in accordance with the policy of the Comprehensive Plan that development regulations be applied consistently and uniformly. 4. Traffic generation of the proposed use in relation to capabilities of streets serving the property. Finding: The proposed amendment will not affect traffic generation for residential dwellings. 5. The proposed use can be accommodated by existing public services and facilities and will not overburden the City's service capacity. Finding: Provision of a storm shelter serves to reduce risk of injury or death of residents during severe weather events in consideration of the vulnerability of slab - on -grade dwellings. The additional protection for these residents offered by a storm shelter can reduce the potential demand for emergency response services during a severe storm event when such services are most burdened. The need for a storm shelter based on potential risks inherent to a slab -on -grade dwelling is best determined by the buyer and building at the time of construction. D. The planning report dated 29 November 2018 prepared by the City Planner, The Planning Company LLC, is incorporated herein. E. The Otsego Planning Commission opened a public hearing at their regular meeting on 3 December 2018 to consider the application, preceded by published and mailed notice; based upon review of the application and evidence received, the public hearing was closed and the Planning Commission recommended by a 6-0 vote that the City Council deny the request based on the aforementioned findings. DECISION: Based on the foregoing information and applicable ordinances, the request is hereby APPROVED, in the form of the draft ordinance presented by City staff. 2 MOTION BY: SECOND BY: ALL IN FAVOR: THOSE OPPOSED: Attest: ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Otsego this 14th day of January, 2019. Tami Loff, City Clerk 3 CITY OF OTSEGO Jessica L. Stockamp, Mayor OTSEGO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OTSEGO CITY HALL DECEMBER 17, 2018 7:00 PM Call to Order. Chair Black called the meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Roll Call: Chair Pam Black; Commissioners: Aaron Stritesky, Jim Kolles, Roger Mord, Dave Thompson, and Alan Offerman; Absent: Commissioners Steve Schuck and Richard Nichols; City Council: Council Member Vern Heidner. City Staff: City Planner Daniel Licht and Administrative Assistant Kelly Thelen. 1. Announcements: None. 2 Consider the following minutes: 2.1 December 3, 2018 Planning Commission Meeting. Commissioner Stritesky motioned to approve. Seconded by Commissioner Offerman. All in favor. Motion carried. 3. Public Hearing Item: 3.1 Amendment Section 11-17-12 Requiring Storm Shelters. (Continued from December 3, 2018) City Planner Licht presented the Planning Report. Applicant, Stephen Bona, Capstone Homes, Inc., 14015 Sunfish Lake Blvd NW, Suite 400, Ramsey, present. Mr. Bona noted support for the City ordinance but wants to give the buyer the option for the storm shelter and not a requirement. Mr. Bona disagreed that Capstone's request is based solely on economics. Harvest Run has single family homes at entrance and villa homes. Mr. Bona has reached out to 11 different communities and did not find another city that requires a storm shelter. A redesign of the homes to be built in Harvest Run would be necessary for them to comply with the storm shelter requirement. Capstone Homes, Inc. was not building in Otsego in 2016 when the ordinance began, but can see the City had good intentions for public safety. Mr. Bona said villa homes are a single level living with snow and lawn maintenance that provide architectural value and are a nice compliment to single family homes. The price for a new home is $300,000-$400,000. The buyers are empty -nesters and are typically looking for homes with no stairs. It is a competitive market and buyers can travel from Minutes of the Otsego Planning Commission December 17, 2018 Page 2 Otsego to get the slab -on -grade villas without a storm shelter requirement. The cost is $10,000-$15,000 for the storm shelter. Mr. Bona said the storm shelters offer little or no perceived value to the buyer and buyers are not asking for storm shelters. Storm shelters are not being built in the Twin Cities and this ordinance will turn buyers away from Otsego. Mr. Bona researched the requirement storm shelters and found one builder, Jeff Benzinger, that have storm shelters in the Twin Cities. Lennar, DR Horton, and M/I Homes all modified their house plans in Otsego to include split entries or basements because of the storm shelter requirement. Lakeville, Minnesota, implemented a storm shelter ordinance for 18 years, but no one has built homes to require the storm shelter. Hugo, Minnesota, implemented a requirement for builders to require the storm shelter be offered as an option to the buyers. Mr. Bona suggested builders should be required to market the option for a storm shelter so the buyers have the ability to choose. Mr. Bona mentioned Betenbough Homes in Texas that Capstone Homes, Inc., does business with; they build 900 slab -on -grade homes a year. Betenbough Homes has never seen a requirement for storm shelters. Mr. Bona said the key is allowing the buyers to have the option to have a storm shelter. The basement finish is an option, but the buyer does not normally have the $30,000- $40,000 extra to have the basement. The storm shelter is a lower cost than a basement finish, but is not a perceived value to the buyer. The third option is to require builders to offer the storm shelter as an option to the buyers, which would remain consistent with the Comprehensive Plan policies cited by City staff. Mr. Bona concluded by proposing to modify the Zoning Ordinance to allow buyers the option of a storm shelter as an investment for them and for builders to market that option accordingly. Mr. Bona mentioned the letter from the Builders Association related to the storm shelter requirement. Mr. Bona said that Capstone Homes is not going down a legal path because the only way to have success is to talk about it with the Planning Commission. Chair Black opened the Public Hearing at 7:31 PM. There were no comments from the public. Chair Black brought the discussion to the Planning Commission members at 7:32 PM. Commissioner Thompson asked about the two Harvest Run buyers' reactions to the addition of the storm shelter. Mr. Bona said the buyers were resistant since they had to change the layout of the house, but they were okay because there was going to be no charge to them. Commissioner Thompson was curious if the buyers were pleased to Minutes of the Otsego Planning Commission December 17, 2018 Page 3 have the safe room. Mr. Bona repeated that the buyers were resistant since they had to change the layout of the house, but they were okay with the requirement because there was no charge to the buyer. Commissioner Offerman questioned the prices quoted asked about Capstone Homes, Inc.'s, cost versus Benzinger Homes. Mr. Bona said the estimate was $10,000- $15,000. The prebuilt unit is $4,000 with added costs bring it in and do extra deep footings. Commissioner Offerman said he found it hard to believe it is $15,000 for an interior room the storm shelter is not outside the standard construction. Mr. Bona said he believes the cost is correct, but the perceived value for the buyer is not there. Mr. Bona added Capstone Homes, Inc. does not want to stop two big projects. Mr. Bona repeated that the storm shelter is a big cost and slowing things down and losing time because of this discussion. Commissioner Offerman said he has mixed feelings about the storm shelter, but agreed public safety is a concern. Mr. Bona said price is not the only issue. Commissioner Offerman replied the cost could be small and does not believe buyers leaving Otsego is a fair concern. CM Heidner questioned the feasibility of Mr. Bona's proposed amendment for the buyers to have an option as the City cannot control the price charged by the builders. Commissioner Offerman asked if the other builders modified their plans because of the ordinance for market value. City Planner Licht said that Lennar and M/I Homes changed plans to either split entry or full basements. Commissioner Thompson said the split entry is shallow. Mr. Bona said Harvest Run is already graded so that makes it difficult to regrade to half basements. The adjacent property to the east that Capstone Homes has under contract could be changed to half basements. Commissioner Stritesky said frost footings and concrete would be the same with added cost for floor trusses. Commissioner Offerman added it is more money to add thickened slab around bathroom to be a storm shelter, but you would not notice the change. Commissioner Mord said that the basis for the storm shelter ordinance being approved was the safety and welfare of residents during severe storms. Commissioner Mord added there is enough creativity for developers to meet the requirement and create a sellable home for the buyers. Commissioner Stritesky said that cost of $10,000 for a storm shelter is about 2.8% of house; sales could decrease, but if the requirement was made an option the builder might not want to market it. Mr. Bona agreed that is 2.5% of new construction, but look across the Twin Cities and note that no one else but Lakeville, who had 450 permits through November, is requiring a shelter. Mr. Bona said the profit might be $1,000 for the storm shelter. Mr. Bona said that slab -on -grade homes are being built everywhere and that even townhomes need basements for the perceived value. Hugo, Minutes of the Otsego Planning Commission December 17, 2018 Page 4 Minnesota, has required builders offer a storm shelter as an option, which might not be a fool -proof plan, but they are doing it that way and it works. Commissioner Offerman asked Mr. Bona what their plans are if the ordinance amendment is either approved or not approved. Mr. Bona replied they are willing to break down costs and give City the numbers if required to offer the storm shelter as an option. Mr. Bona said that if the ordinance amendment is denied, the villa lots will need to be regraded. The future additions of Harvest Run have not been graded, but will be graded for single family dwellings. Capstone Homes, Inc. will also remove plans for villas within the parcel to the east that they have under contract. Mr. Bona said that Capstone Homes, Inc., will lose when the market hits a dip because there won't be a variety of houses within the developments, as the more products you have, the longer you will ride out the market. Commissioner Offerman said he has mixed feelings between about phase developments where a storm shelter is not required because they were preliminary platted prior to the ordinance. Commissioner Offerman asked why aren't the lots that have not touched and graded being redone to require the ordinance; was it because they got in before the ordinance changed. Commissioner Thompson asked if the builder is required to put in the storm shelters. City Planner Licht said building plans were approved when the preliminary plats was approved prior to adoption of the Ordinance. Commissioner Offerman continued that the ordinance requiring storm shelters was adopted for the safety of the community. Mr. Bona said Capstone Homes, Inc., is willing to work with Planning Commission to create a plan. Mr. Bona questioned why the City can require the storm shelter versus why the buyer should be able to decide. Capstone Homes, Inc., can only push the price up so much, but added they want the buyers to have the option for safety. Chair Black returned to the public for additional comment at 7:59 PM. There were no public comments. Chair Black closed the public hearing at 8:00 PM. Commissioner Stritesky said that the City's intentions for public safety might not be most popular, but someone has to be first to require storm shelters. Commissioner Stritesky added he is not ready if there is a storm that comes through and plans were not in place to have the storm shelter and there was destruction. Commissioner Stritesky also noted that Benzinger Homes has followed the ordinance requirement. Minutes of the Otsego Planning Commission December 17, 2018 Page 5 Commissioner Offerman agreed with Commissioner Stritesky. Commissioner Offerman also said that there may be a way to transition; maybe require it as option, but an economical option. Commissioner Offerman also agreed with Commissioner Mord's comment that the developers are creative at finding solutions. Commissioner Mord remarked that providing a storm shelter as an option is the same as repealing the ordinance. Commissioner Mord did not believe there is incentive for builders to make it cost effective. A lot of thought was made when the ordinance was adopted for it to be a safety requirement. Chair Black commented the buyer might be the first of many homeowners that is making the choice for the storm shelter if it is only an option. Commissioner Kolles agreed the public safety is the most important factor. Commissioner Kolles said he could not imagine what he would do if he lived in a slab - on -grade home. Commissioner Kolles said he does not believe the option to choose whether or not to have a storm shelter is feasible. Commission Kolles said that if $350,000 is the cost for a house then the $10,000 cost for the storm shelter is peanuts. Commissioner Kolles asked the Commissioners to think about putting a price on family and wondered who would the blame go on if the storm shelter is not there. Commissioner Thompson commented he has been going to the basement the whole time he has lived in Minnesota and cannot imagine not having a basement or storm shelter to go to. Commissioner Kolles replied he cannot see the complaint about the $10,000 cost for the storm shelter and added he would not buy a house if there was not a storm shelter or basement. Commissioner Stritesky said it is not a commercial issue and to repeal the requirement for the builders to sell for less is irresponsible to the community. Mr. Bona asked for an opportunity to respond. Chair Black allowed the opportunity to comment. Mr. Bona said it is not about cost, but it is about the market. Mr. Bona said he does not have an answer to the question about safety, but that no one gets blamed if storm comes and destroy the City. Mr. Bona said this ordinance is a brand new requirement and questioned where do the regulations stop: Mr. Bona commented on fires are higher in the City and questioned when the requirement for sprinklers would be adopted. Mr. Bona wondered when security systems would become a requirement in the City. Mr. Bona said to repeal the storm shelter requirement would be the best thing for Benzinger Homes because it is hurting sales. Mr. Bona said they would to bring in costs and build options for the storm shelter in their development to have a creative Minutes of the Otsego Planning Commission December 17, 2018 Page 6 solution. Mr. Bona said that the second buyer of a house has a choice whether or not to buy a house that has a storm shelter or not. Mr. Bona thanked the Planning Commission for their time to discuss. Commissioner Thompson motioned to recommend the application be denied based on a finding that the request is inconsistent with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and intent of the Zoning Ordinance as set forth in the findings of fact as presented. Seconded by Commissioner Stritesky. All in favor. Motion carried. Council Member Heidner encouraged Mr. Bona to work with City staff to consider options to address their concerns regarding the storm shelter requirement. 4. Update on City Council actions. Council Member Heidner updated the Planning Commission on recent City Council actions. 5. Update on future Planning Commission Agenda items. City Planner Licht updated the commissioners on possible future agenda items. No January meetings because no applications have been made. 6. Adjourn. Commissioner Offerman motioned to adjourn. Seconded by Commissioner Stritesky. All in favor. Motion carried. Adjourned at 8:36 PM. Pam Black, Chair ATTEST: Kelly Thelen, Administrative Assistant