Loading...
pc-agenda-sep-13-21       REGULAR MEETING AGENDA    Planning Commission meetings are being conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote  options for attending, participating, and commenting. The public can make statements in this meeting  during the planned public comment sections.     Remote Attendance/Comment Options: Members of the public may attend this meeting by watching  on cable channel 16, streaming on CCXmedia.org, or via Webex by calling 1‐415‐655‐0001 and entering  access code 2450 888 8600.   *Majority of the Commissioners will attend the meeting in the Council Chambers, one member requires  greater social distancing and they will be located in the Council Conference Room. Both rooms are  accessible to the public.    1. Call to Order    2. Approval of Agenda    3. Approval of Minutes  August 23, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting    4. Discussion – Class I Material     5. Discussion – RLUIPA       – End of Televised Portion of Meeting –  To listen to this portion, please call 1‐415‐655‐0001 and enter meeting access code 2450 888 8600.      6. Council Liaison Report    7. Other Business  a. Reports on Board of Zoning Appeals and Other Meetings    8. Adjournment  September 13, 2021 – 7 pm  Council Chambers and Council Conference Room  Hybrid Meeting*         REGULAR MEETING MINUTES    This meeting was conducted in a hybrid format with in‐person and remote options for  attending, participating, and commenting. The City used Webex to conduct this meeting and  members of the public were able to monitor the meetings by watching it on Comcast cable  channel 16, by streaming it on CCXmedia.org, or by dialing in to the public call‐in line.     1. Call to Order  The meeting was called to order at 7:00 by Chair Pockl.     Roll Call  Commissioners in person:  Adam Brookins, Andy Johnson, Lauren Pockl, Mike Ruby, Chuck   Segelbaum   Commissioners virtual:    Rich Baker  Commissioners absent:    None  Staff present:     Myles Campbell – Planner   Council Liaison present:   Gillian Rosenquist    2. Approval of Agenda  Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the agenda.  Commissioner Johnson asked for an update on the remaining Comprehensive Plan Rezoning.   MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve the  agenda of August 23, 2021. Motion carried.    3. Approval of Minutes  Chair Pockl asked for a motion to approve the minutes from August 9, 2021.  MOTION made by Commissioner Johnson, seconded by Commissioner Ruby, to approve minutes.  Motion carried.    4. Informal Public Hearing – Consideration of Preliminary Plat   Address: 8810 10th Ave North  Applicant: Academy of Whole Learning    Val Quarles, Community Development Intern, introduced the topic. The Academy of Whole Learning  is seeking to consolidate the three parcels they own: 8810 10th, 915 Boone Ave North, and 1021 Boone  Ave North. Staff noted the proposed conditions for the preliminary plat approval, and that the  application otherwise met the City’s criteria for approval of a minor lot consolidation.       August 23, 2021 – 7 pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       2  Recommended Action   Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary Plat by Planning Commission, subject to conditions.    Chair Pockl asked if any Commissioners had questions for staff. Commissioner Johnson asked for  clarification on the purpose of the lot consolidation. Quarles clarified that while, the school owned all  three properties, the shared internal lot lines would impact the ability to expand the building, due to  minimum required setbacks.    Commissioner Brookins asked how the north side of the lot was considered side or rear yard. Quarles  stated that it would be considered a side yard since it did not front a public street. Johnson asked about  the condition regarding the provision of a new fire hydrant and who would be responsible for that cost.  Myles Campbell, Planner, stated that the applicant would be responsible for the purchase and  installation costs, while the city would become involved if maintenance were required long‐term. Pockl  asked whether the applicant was aware of the fire hydrant and easement conditions. Staff affirmed  that they were aware of all proposed conditions.     Hearing no further questions from Commissioners, the Chair invited the applicant to address the body.  Dan Noyes, with Sperides Reiners Architects, Inc. addressed the Planning Commission. Mr. Noyes  confirmed that they had planned for the hydrant with the Fire Marshall and that they were planning  for the needed easements. Commissioner Johnson asked whether the site had vehicle access from  Boone. Mr. Noyes noted that it does, and that the school was planning to use that access as the  principal exit.     Hearing no further questions from the applicant, the Chair opened the Public Hearing at 7:17pm. No  commenters were in person at the meeting. No commenters called into the official phone line. The  Chair closed the Public Hearing at 7:18.    Chair Pockl asked Commissioners for their discussion. Commissioner Baker noted what a great asset  the school seemed. He had no issues with the proposal. Commissioner Segelbaum noted that the  application seemed to meet the necessary requirements for a consolidation had been met, and that  he felt it should be approved. He agreed with Commissioner Baker on the value of the School. Chair  Pockl affirmed.     Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for a motion.     MOTION made by Commissioner Brookins to recommend approval of the Preliminary Plat, with the  conditions as written by staff. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Segelbaum.    The motion passed unanimously.      City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       3  5. Informal Public Hearing ‐ Preliminary Plan for Golden Valley Country Club Villas PUD No. 126   Address: 7001 Golden Valley Road  Applicant: Ron Clark Construction    Myles Campbell, Planner, introduced the public hearing topic. Ron Clark Construction is seeking  approval of a Planning Unit Development (PUD) to construct seven new single‐family homes on the  northwesterly portion of the Golden Valley Country Club property located at 7001 Golden Valley Road.  The PUD would be necessary due to the design of the individual home lots, which are more compact  than what is allowed by code, as well as the inclusion of a communal open space towards the existing  street intersection.     Staff presented on the Preliminary PUD Plan, covering the request details, City PUD procedure, the  review and evaluation done by staff, and the evaluation of the Public Amenities provided. Campbell  went through the necessary findings for approval of the Preliminary Plan, which staff felt had been  conditionally met to their satisfaction.     Recommended Action   Staff recommended approval of the Preliminary PUD Plan by Planning Commission. This approval was  subject to the 14 conditions that were recommended by City Staff, in order to address outstanding  issues prior to the Final PUD Plan.     Campbell reminded Commissioners that as part of the Preliminary PUD process they were also  encouraged to provide feedback and recommended modifications for the City Council to consider.     Chair Pockl asked if the Commissioners had any questions for staff.     Commissioner Segelbaum asked if the zoning code flexibilities listed by staff included in their  consideration the recent modifications to code regarding narrow lots. Campbell explained that those  new changes had been incorporated in staff review. He noted that height and individual lot cover data  were not provided in the Preliminary Plan, and that these may require flexibility from code. Segelbaum  asked if the garages for the new homes met the new façade requirements for narrow lots. Campbell  affirmed that the garages, while making up a significant portion of the front façade, did not exceed the  75% of total façade maximum that had been established for narrow lots.    Segelbaum noted that the City had in cases approved PUDs with narrow setbacks, and asked whether  staff had weighed any items differently within the Preliminary Plan as part of their review. Campbell  noted that staff focused on the proximity to Bassett Creek and the protection of that shoreland area.  In terms of the balance of the requests, he noted that the most significant flexibilities in staff’s eyes  were those related to lot standards such as area and width.     Commissioner Baker requested that the next staff memorandum on the topic also include those code  flexibilities as part of the PUD beyond the zoning and subdivision items, in order to get a fuller sense  of the request.  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       4    Pockl asked whether the Planning Commission would need to find in the affirmative for each of the  findings of fact that are required to approve a Preliminary PUD, and whether a single negative finding  would lead them to recommend denial. Campbell answered that this was the case, and that all findings  must be met. Campbell noted that staff felt that a portion of those were being met outright, with some  findings only being met in staff’s eyes due to the conditions proposed for the approval.    Commissioner Johnson asked why the site plans provided as part of the application included the  names of neighboring property owners, and whether that seemed significant to staff. Campbell  answered that the documents in question were submitted by the applicant, and that his best guess  was that the property owner information had been pulled from Hennepin County’s online records.  Staff had not felt it significant in their review, and gave examples of other cases where multiple  property owners might be listed on a survey document.     Segelbaum asked about the petition for Public Amenity points for the Green Path Certification, and  whether or not they were necessary. Campbell reiterated the requirements to petition for amenity  points, but agreed with Commissioner Segelbaum that given the other amenities proposed, the two  points would not be necessary.     Commissioner Brookins asked if there were additional plans submitted to the City, and specifically in  regard to stormwater management. Campbell answered that additional materials had been  submitted, and that typical practice from staff was to exclude certain technical documents or those  that were not otherwise pertinent to discussion. Campbell reiterated the details on the stormwater  management plan.     Brookins asked whether there were any issues regarding the third stormwater storage tank that fell  outside the boundary of the PUD. Campbell noted that this location would likely involve agreements  between the Country Club and the future Homeowners Association. Brookins requested that the site  plan sets regarding stormwater could be included in the next staff memorandum.    Baker asked whether the PUD and its conditions could affect areas outside the PUD. Campbell noted  that this was an option, however with the limitation that in the cases of conditions of approval there  still needed to be a nexus between the condition proposed and a regulatory interest by the City. Baker  stated that he was particularly interested in the impacts of the PUD on the shoreland area and Bassett  Creek, and that portion of the shoreland outside the PUD.     Baker asked about the floodplain area around the Creek. Campbell brought up an aerial map of the  area to demonstrate the various overlays along Bassett Creek, including floodplain, floodway, and the  50‐foot shoreland setback. Campbell provided more details on the shoreland overlay, the 50‐foot  structure setback, and the 300‐foot shoreland area. Baker noted he was concerned about how those  overlay areas were or were not represented on the site plans. He requested that the City require these  areas be shown on future plans. Baker also requested that the tree preservation plans provided by the  applicant be updated to call out the locations of the four legacy trees on‐site.   City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       5    Campbell noted that to the Commissioner’s first point, staff had recommended a condition of approval  that the plans should show all shoreland areas and areas of steep slopes. The staff conditions had not  included identification of legacy trees, but that it could certainly be included if the Commission desired.    Baker asked whether staff knew why the applicant had decided to use underground storage tanks  versus above‐ground stormwater options. He was not enthusiastic about the use of below ground  treatment and the lack of alternative options provided by the plan. Campbell provided some  background into the discussions between staff and the applicant, but deferred to the applicant to  answer why they had chosen underground storage.     Johnson added that he was skeptical of the stormwater management systems proposed, especially  given the number of trees being removed and the site elevation for the north tank. Campbell reiterated  that he was not a civil engineer and that the question of how the stormwater systems would function  might be better left to the applicant. He did note that in regards to elevation, the use of underground  was here a benefit since they would be lower than grade, compared to a pond which would need to  be made larger and deeper to function similarly.     Johnson asked if staff could explain why the front setback was being measured to the curb rather than  the front property line. Campbell noted that typical practice is to provide the front setback to the  property line, but that they had used the curb distance since it had been provided by the applicant.  Staff had reviewed the setbacks to front lot lines as well, and noted that the applicant was already  planning to include this measurement on the next set of plans.    Chari Pockl noted that no further questions remained for staff and invited a representative for the  project, Mike Waldo, Ron Clark Construction, to speak on its behalf.     Mr. Waldo introduced the rest of his team present at the meeting, as well as two representatives from  the Country Club. Mr. Waldo started by describing the stormwater management system. He noted  that Outlot A was the best option in terms of soil infiltration, and therefore was chosen to have the  main storage tanks. He reiterated that a pond in that area would need to be exceptionally wide and  deep in order to function at a similar level. He noted that one of the benefits of below ground  treatment is that there is no chance of overflows during major flooding events, as with a pond.      Commissioner Johnson asked for further clarification on the grading as it relates to stormwater. Mr.  Waldo defined the area served by the north storage tanks, and noted that the storage tank system is  buried such that it is still lower than grades in that area. Commissioner Baker also expressed skepticism  on whether the grading of the PUD did support the correct flow of water. He expressed a desire for  the applicant to consider use of a pond or rain garden on the northern outlot.     Mr. Waldo noted that Outlot B was originally considered for use as a ponding area. If no longer needed  for this use, or to meet impervious surface percentages, they were looking to remove Outlot B.     City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       6  Mr. Waldo described the thinking behind the PUD’s purpose and intent. He noted that the area in  question could support a traditional 7‐lot subdivision, but that the Country Club had chosen them for  the quality of the development plan, and its limited impact on neighboring properties. Mr. Waldo  noted that one outstanding item they were working on was tree removal. He noted that their team  was focusing on replanting with native trees, and noted that a number of the significant trees on site  were Black Locust. Mr. Waldo noted that this species was non‐native to Minnesota and identified by  the Minnesota Department of Agriculture as a noxious tree. His hope was that by removing the  aggressive tree species and replacement with native trees there would be a better diversity of trees  within the PUD over time.     Chair Pockl asked if the applicant knew the size of the replacement trees being planned for. Mr. Waldo  confirmed with their landscape architect that they were targeting Category A replacement trees from  city code, approximately 2.5 to 4 inches in diameter.     Commissioner Baker commented that he did not care for the comparison between Black Locust and  invasive species of tree such as buckthorn. He did not feel that the tree species was undesirable. Baker  stated that of the legacy trees, one was a black locust, versus the remaining legacy trees being Austrian  Pines, a non‐native tree.    Mr. Waldo provided additional details on the other aspects of the landscaping plan, in regard to use  of sod, native replantings, and the vegetation within the shoreland setback area.     Mr. Waldo noted that they had shown the street as public right‐of‐way, and that they were  comfortable with the recommended condition regarding the stub access for lots 6 & 7. He described  two potential options for the public amenity area on Outlot A, and that they were seeking feedback  from Planning Commission. He noted that they proposed amenities were designed to be in scale with  the neighborhood, creating a rest area rather than a larger gathering area that might impact  surrounding properties.    Commissioner Baker made a comment that he felt the applicant should consider that the PUD might  require more than the minimum protections from Bassett Creek compared to a conventional  subdivision. Commissioner Johnson agreed, noting that the stormwater plan met the minimum  requirements, but that he would like to see a plan that exceeds those minimums. Mr. Waldo  acknowledged the comments from Commissioners and noted that because the lot currently had very  little runoff, the development’s stormwater management was held to meeting or exceeding that same  amount of runoff. He pointed out that as part of the flexibilities provided by the PUD, they were asking  for no flexibilities from the requirements for stormwater management or from the shoreland overlays.    Commissioner Johnson asked whether the road would be built to lower standards than required by  the City. Mr. Waldo answered that the road would be built to the same standards as if it were  constructed by the city, but that the amount of right‐of‐way dedicated around the roadway was less  than subdivision code called for. Johnson clarified his confusion was related to a condition in the  packet. Campbell explained that a condition was included that public improvements associated with  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       7  the project would be constructed by the City itself, but the applicant would be responsible for the cost  of the construction.    Chair Pockl asked what the value of the homes might be. Mr. Waldo stated the homes would be  around $1,000,000. He noted this was slightly above the value of homes in the neighborhood, but not  out of character for homes that might be rebuilt today. He noted that while lower market value, the  existing homes have appreciated in their value over time and are very well maintained and his hope  was that their project would continue this type of character.     Pockl asked why the applicant chose to use a fee in lieu of replanting the trees removed on site. Mr.  Waldo noted that with the redevelopment, there would not be enough open space to effectively plant  trees without them out‐competing each other.     Commissioner Baker asked whether the applicant had considered building only six‐units as opposed  to seven, allowing for more space to replant trees and accommodate public benefits. Mr. Waldo  answered that the plan for seven lots has been their plan since presenting to the Golf Course initially.  They thought it made sense from a financial perspective for the project, but that it would also work  well for the future residents, neighbors, and the city itself.     Chair Pockl asked if Commissioners had any further questions for the applicant, hearing none she  thanked Mr. Waldo for his time.      Chair Pockl opened the public hearing at 9:00pm    Eric Boe, 1023 Quebec Ave N. Mr. Boe thanked the body for their work, and asked the City to consider  the off‐center intersection of Plymouth and Pennsylvania, and the drop in grade as Plymouth Ave  moves east. He noted that cars travelling along Plymouth are a danger to pedestrians, and that he was  concerned about introducing a new drive access from the development along Plymouth. He would like  to see a sidewalk be included along this street. Mr. Boe also noted he was a little concerned about  public art, and asked that the neighborhood be involved in the discussion. He did not want to see the  area become a place of loitering.     Lisa Boe, 1023 Quebec Ave N. Ms. Boe noted that as a pedestrian she appreciates the sidewalk along  Pennsylvania given the speed of vehicle traffic. She noted that the existing trees are helpful in terms  of shade for walkers. She reiterated that Plymouth Ave is dangerous for pedestrians without a  sidewalk.  She noted that given the number of exceptions to the zoning code, that perhaps there were  too many homes proposed. She also spoke about the removal of trees further along Bassett Creek, and  that while she likes native vegetation, she did not want it to appear messy.     There were no callers for the hybrid comment period.   Chair Pockl closed the hearing at 9:06pm    City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       8  Chair Pockl invited the Commissioners to begin their discussion of the item. Commissioner Segelbaum  asked if other commissioners wanted to break out individual topics, before providing his own thoughts  on the Preliminary Plan. He noted that among the necessary findings, consistency stood out to him as  well as the balance of flexibility and amenities. He felt that these were weighed in favor of the  applicant, noting that he could not recall another instance where the Commission had approved such  a setback. Segelbaum also felt concerned about the amount of front façade taken up by the garage.  He was uncomfortable with the level of density.     Commissioner Baker agreed with the Commissioner Segelbaum, and felt it was not consistent with  the neighborhood, based on the value of the homes. He did not see any benefit to the city other than  an increase to tax base. He pointed out that this is valuable open space to neighbors. Baker thanked  those Commissioners that recommended denial of the rezoning of the land, based on the loss of  woodland and stream buffer. He asked for additional evidence regarding the need for a bike rest area  in this location, and was also not enthusiastic for the other amenities proposed. He reiterated his desire  to see the applicant consider six homes rather than seven for the site.      Commissioner Johnson reiterated a number of the concerns already stated. He mentioned that he had  not been supportive of the PUD Amenity Point system, and that developers would seek out the easiest  points available. Johnson noted that the staff memo left some significant unanswered questions. He  felt the Preliminary Plan did not represent quality site planning. He mentioned appreciating the  comments from residents about providing a new sidewalk and additional shade trees along  Pennsylvania.     Commissioner Brookins noted that parts of the plan he was comfortable with. He noted that the  shorter front setbacks were mitigated by the additional buffer from the homes across Pennsylvania.  However, he felt that the benefit to the City was still lacking in regard to the amenities. He noted that  he was generally in favor of the villa design, and that it would be appropriate for the neighborhood.  He wondered if there was an opportunity to provide an overlook space for the Creek or golf course,  versus a bench on a street corner. Brookins also supported the idea of a sidewalk along Plymouth.     Commissioner Baker suggested that the Golf Course allow the Luce Line Regional Trail through the golf  course, which he saw as a major amenity.     Chair Pockl noted that she did not feel the findings necessary for approval had not been met by the  Preliminary Plan. She noted that she had recommended denying the zoning change, and that her  opinion had not changed for the most part. She wanted to see more done in regard to tree replacement  and shoreland protection.     Commissioner Brookins asked staff to elaborate on the PUD process, and given the Commissioners’  discussion whether it was more appropriate to table the item versus recommending denial to City  Council. Campbell recommended that the Commission still send the Preliminary Plan to City Council,  in this case with a denial, so that the City Council would also have the opportunity to review the  materials.  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       9  MOTION made by Commissioner Baker to recommend denial of the Preliminary PUD Plan, based on  the determination that the required findings of approval had not been met. Commissioner Segelbaum  provided the specific findings and Baker noted especially Quality Site Planning, Efficiency, and  Preservation had not been met. Motion was seconded by Commissioner Johnson.    The motion passed unanimously.     6. Discussion – Accessory Dwelling Units  Val Quarles, Community Development Intern, introduced the discussion. Quarles ran through the  areas in which the code could restrict and regulate Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and which of those  fell under the zoning code, versus other sections of City code. The discussion also included comparison  with how other Minnesota communities have applied the regulations.   As a discussion item there was no recommended action for the Planning Commission, staff had a few  guiding questions for the Planning Commission to consider.    Chair Pockl asked if any commissioners had questions for staff. Commissioner Baker complimented  the presentation and asked about what community input had been gathered thus far. Quarles noted  that no official survey had been proposed yet, however, anecdotally staff hears from residents often  asking about their ability to add a mother‐in‐law style apartment to their home, which is currently  restricted under code. She noted staff plans to have community input once the ordinance is further  developed.   Commissioner Johnson asked how the ordinance would be effectively enforced, and how the city  would differentiate between an ADU and any other home addition. Quarles noted that it was a good  question to keep in mind moving forward, and that the Commissioner was getting at some of the issues  with the existing code language, namely that it was difficult to currently enforce the “boarding room”  allowed for R‐1 homes. Campbell provided additional information on the current requirements for  building permits and rental licensing.     Commissioner Ruby asked how the additional structure is handled in terms of home value and taxable  value. Staff noted it was something they needed to do more research around, and that they would  contact the County Assessor to see if any market evidence could be found.   Pockl asked for a clarification on staffs’ comparisons in the memo and presentation to Minneapolis  and Apple Valley. Quarles affirmed that the two were meant to describe opposite ends of the scale  when it came to how restrictive an ADU ordinance was drafted, Minneapolis being one of the least  restrictive, and Apple Valley one of the most. Quarles noted that Planning Commission’ own  preference for an ordinance in Golden Valley would likely fall somewhere in between these two  extremes.  Commissioner Brookins noted his appreciation for the City ordinance comparisons. He noted that he  was initially interested and drawn to the ordinance adopted by Minnetonka. He asked that if the  Commission were to continue considering detached ADUs, that he would like to have an estimate for  the number of detached garages existing in the City today. He noted that he was in favor of internal  and attached ADUs, and that he would consider detached ADUs, perhaps with a conditional use  City of Golden Valley    Planning Commission Regular Meeting  August 23, 2021, 2021 – 7 pm       10 requirement. He also highlighted parking and utilities as other areas where he would like to see more  information.     Commissioner Ruby asked if other cities regulate the appearance of the ADU. Quarles affirmed that  many cities do have a requirement that the ADU match the exterior of the principal structure, some  go into greater detail in terms of how the exterior treatment of the ADU must be handled to reduce  visual impact.    Commissioner Johnson stated that he was supportive of the use of a special permit for ADUs, and also  brought up the idea of a buffer or proximity restriction between ADUs. He noted that he was not as  concerned about a maximum size compared to a minimum, given that no matter the size of the unit,  it was still adding density by default. Quarles asked for clarification on the suggested buffer restriction.  Johnson noted he felt it did not need to be a hard prohibition on multiple units in a small area, but felt  that it could function as a quota or a way to control the rate of adoption through the city. Quarles  noted that while difficult to predict demand for ADUs, she noted that it was important to bear in mind  impacts on neighbors. Johnson agreed, and said there should be a balance between allowing ADUs  while protecting long‐term residents.     Commissioner Baker agreed with Johnson’s comments around aging in place. He noted that he felt  this was in part an equity issue and that staff and the Commission continued to keep this in mind when  considering regulations and what might be barrier to certain people. He appreciated Commissioner  Brookins earlier analysis on the Minnetonka code.     Chair Pockl closed the discussion, and ended the televised portion of the meeting.    7. Council Liaison Report   Council Member Rosenquist provided a summary on the ongoing activities of City Council and other  City‐wide activities including: Facilities Study and upcoming City Hall tours for residents, the newly  established PEACE Commission, and upcoming budget discussions.     8. Other Business  Campbell noted only that the Board of Zoning Appeals would be meeting on August 24th, 2021. The  Board had one variance item for discussion and deliberation.     9. Adjournment  MOTION by Commissioner Brookins to adjourn, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, and  approved unanimously. Meeting adjourned at 10:05 pm.                                                                                                          ________________________________                                                                                                  Andy Johnson, Secretary  ________________________________  Amie Kolesar, Planning Assistant    1      Date:  September 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:    Class I Material Determination      Summary  Brian Tempas, representing LSE Architects, is working with The Simmons Group on a proposal to  redevelop the former Tennant office site at 1111 Douglas Drive. The project team is asking the  Planning Commission to consider classifying a proposed exterior material as a Class 1 material,  thereby allowing them to satisfy the requirements of the Architectural and Material Standards  section of the zoning chapter of City Code.    Background  In June of 2019, the City Council – with heavy involvement by the Planning Commission – adopted  new Architectural and Material Standards for inclusion in the City Code. These requirements  included various aspects of the design of new buildings, but also outlined minimum standards  related to the exterior materials used on these buildings. These standards included a list of  identified materials grouped into Class I, Class II, and Class III materials, as well as Prohibited  Materials. Generally, Class I materials were determined to be the highest quality while Class III  were the lowest quality. The new standards also detailed, by zoning district, various levels of each  of the material types to be included on new buildings.    The Planning Commission anticipated that new technologies might result in material types that  were not specifically included in this table, so added an option to have “other materials not listed  elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee or as recommended by the  Planning Commission” to be allowed without having to amend the zoning text.    This option was not intended to act as a variance, allowing a material that would otherwise be  restricted, but to accommodate possible new material types that had not previously been  documented.        2    Proposal  The Simmons Group is proposing to redevelop 1111 Douglas Drive with two multifamily buildings.  The property was recently rezoned to Neighborhood Mixed Use. The material standards for this  district are:  a. Front façades, and side and rear façades visible from the public right‐of‐way, shall be  composed of at least 50% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.  b. Side and rear façades not visible from the public right‐of‐way shall be composed of at  least 40% Class I materials and no more than 10% Class III materials.  c. Each façade must utilize a minimum of two types of Class I materials.    Class I materials are defined as:   Brick   Natural stone   Glass   Copper   Porcelain   Other materials not listed elsewhere as approved by the City Manager or his/her designee  or as recommended by the Planning Commission    LSE Architects has identified a new product that is not currently included on the Class I list, but that  they believe should be considered for use on their buildings. The product is a James Hardie panel  system called The Aspyre Collection. More information regarding this material is attached, but  generally it is a fiber‐cement panel siding – a material type that is currently listed as Class II in the  zoning chapter. The project team believes the quality, integrity, and appearance of this product put  it on par with other Class I materials.    Analysis  Staff recalls that the Planning Commission took seriously the task of creating the material class lists,  demonstrating a strong interest in promoting Class I materials that reflected a high‐quality  aesthetic that would hold up well over the coming decades.    After reviewing the promotional materials provided by the developer, staff does not believe there  is a significant difference between this product line and other types of Hardie siding, which have  been previously classified as a Class II material. Manufacturer claims of a 40‐year lifespan may hold  true, but as a new product line this timeline has not been tested. Maintenance is important, as is  proper installation. The City’s Building Official notes that if the edges of Hardie panels are not  sealed and flashed correctly, they may absorb water and swell.    Recommendation  Based on review of the materials submitted, staff recommends denial of the request to include the  reveal panels of the James Hardie Aspyre Collection in the Class I material list.    Attachments  Product information, Golden Valley context images, and national examples (32 pages)  Memorandum Project: TSG Golden Valley Apartments Project #: 21-2016-01 To: Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager Copy: Tony Simmons (TSG), Eric Kaphingst (TSG), Mohammed Lawal (LSE), Myles Campbell (Golden Valley) From: Brian Tempas, AIA (LSE) Date: September 08, 2021 Subject: Request for “Aspyre Reveal Panel” systems approval as Class I Thank you for talking with me last Friday (9/03/21) concerning the TSG – Golden Valley Apartment project located at 1111 Douglas Drive in Golden Valley. We appreciate your openness to discuss and consider the attributes of this premier rain screen-type system provided and manufactured by James Hardie Company for consideration as a Class I material. Based on our understanding of how this system is designed and manufactured, and its recognition in cities across the nation as a high level material, we are confident that this material can align with your Planning Departments evaluation and be accepted as a material that is both appealing and durable, as well as sustainable and safe (fire proof). A. Attachments of note: 1. Photos of Golden Valley Project 2. Planning Commission Discussion Considerations 3. Panel Comparison Chart 4. Aspyre Information Sheet 5. Reveal Warrantee 6. Reveal Technical Data 7. Artisan Profile Guide 8. ASTM C1186-08 Information 9. MF – Commission Overview 10. Hz5 information sheet 11. National Photo Examples We (LSE Architects and TSG Development team) understand that there is a meeting September 13, 2021 to review and discuss this approval. We can be in attendance or connected by Zoom for this session. We strongly believe that this product meets the integrity of a Class I material and aligns with your planning guidelines for new Copy To: Robbie Johnson (TSG), Loni Strasman (LSE), Necmi Karaman (LSE) Planning Commission Discussion Considerations 8 September, 2021 1. Many Planning Departments across the country’s stance on material standards, as written, are unjustly biased against James Hardie (JH) fiber cement products, based on a history of third party fiber cement manufactures who have had failure issues. 2. Since their introduction in the US in the late 1980s, JH fiber cement products have performed durably and consistently on millions of commercial and residential buildings across the US, without failure or durability issues. a. Material Composition: JH fiber cement panels are overwhelmingly composed of natural and proven ingredients; over 90% Portland cement and sand. It contains no fly ash or wood particles that can lead to failure concerns. b. Application Method: Many planning departments across the country have favored the use of rainscreen application. James Hardie Reveal Panels are by design installed as a rainscreen. (For the Golden Valley project TSG is suggesting using Revel Panels for roughly 17% of the exterior material) c. According to ASTM guidelines/ standards - there is no minimum density requirement for fiber cement. Density does not determine or influence product durability. d. ASTM classification standards are based on bending strength, impacting fastening requirements, not durability. All exterior grade fiber cement is required to meet the same durability performance requirements and JH fiber cement products meets or exceeds these standards. i. [include comparative chart?] e. Appearance: i. Planning Departments around the country typically require low maintenance/ high durability materials, this should not preclude prefinished fiber cement for Class I. JH has successfully manufactured prefinished fiber cement since 2002 that can comply with 30+ year warranties. Similar to other Class I materials. ii. Additionally, Planning Departments state that “appearance is not a primary factor” in classifying materials, yet many have categorically restricted the use of all lap siding to more than 50% (Class II) and equated the performance of fiber cement lap siding with less durable wood composite lap siding. 3. Affordability a. Historically, criteria for Class I materials have ruled out the use of domestically made pre-finished fiber cement panels. However, approved systems have been imported at a premium cost, and are indistinguishable from JH materials and systems. b. Traditionally, criteria for Class II materials have accepted the use of durable fiber cement lap siding, which may be installed at a lower cost than panelized systems. Panelized systems, by definition, have higher integrity due to fastening, metal framing support, and thicker panels. 4. Zone appropriate a. JH provides construction zone specific materials for northern and southern climates. Municipalities are concerned that products aren’t able to withstand the intense temperatures and precipitation. JH’s HZ-5 material is used in Northern Iowa into Canada as it is designed to meet “hardy zone” weather challenges. Cement Composite Panel Comparison (materials on this chart have exceeded 50% exterior across US) Nichiha Illumination Panels1 TAKTL Cement Composite Panels2 James Hardie Reveal Fiber Cement composite panels3 James Hardie HardiePanel Fiber Cement composite panels Swisspearl Fiber Cement Composite Panels4 Trespa Meteon Panels5 Material Wood particle reinforced /cement composite Fiber reinforced cement composite Fiber reinforced cement composite Fiber reinforced cement composite Fiber reinforced cement composite High Pressure paper/resin laminate Product Standard ASTM C 1186 Type A Grade II ASTM C 1186 Type A Grade IV ASTM C 1186 Type A Grade II ASTM C 1186 Type A Grade II ASTM C 1186 Type A Grade IV EN 438-6:2005 Thickness 5/8 inch 5/8 inch 7/16 inch 5/16 inch 8 mm or 12 mm (3/8 in or 9/16 in) ¼ in to 5/8 in Density6 1.28 g/cc 2.19 g/cc 1.20 g/cc 1.35 g/cc 1.80 g/cc 1.35 g/cc Finish Nichiha factory- applied 15 year warranty Integral pigment 10 year warranty James Hardie factory-applied finish 15 Year warranty James Hardie factory-applied finish 15 Year warranty Swisspearl Factory- applied acrylic finish 10 year warranty Integral pigments Fire Rating ASTM E 84 · NFPA Class: · Max. Flame Spread · Max. Smoke Developed A 0 <5 A 0 <5 A 0 <5 A 0 <5 A 0 <15 A 25 450 1 See http://www.nichiha.com/images/uploads/CSI-Illumination_Series.pdf 2 See http://www.taktl-llc.com/sites/default/files/files/TAKTL-Technical-Documents/T2-1-4-TAKTL-Certified-Test-Results.pdf 3 See https://www.jameshardie.com/product-support/resource-center/technical-documents 4 See https://www.swisspearl.com/download?file=fileadmin/template/pdf_downloads/Technical_Information/CSI_Specification.doc 5 http://www.trespa.info/Images/codeV8001_Trespa_Material_property_datasheet_version3%202_date10-01-2012_tcm37-46519.pdf 6 Density equilibrated at 50° C , 50% Relative Humidity Distinctive Design Engineered to Last aspyredesign.com by The Aspyre Collection by James Hardie™ brings together the contrasting elements of Artisan® siding and the Reveal® Panel System for one-of-a-kind home designs. Reveal® Recess Trim Available primed Reveal® Surround Trim Available primed, in clear anodized finish or with ColorPlus® Technology to match Reveal Panels. Talk to your local rep about ColorPlus Technology availability in your market. Reveal Recess Trim Reveal™ Countersunk Fasteners Reveal Panels ARTISAN® SIDING REVEAL® PANEL SYSTEM V-Groove Shiplap Bevel Channel Square Channel Lap Beaded Lap Reveal Surround Trim Reveal™ Exposed Fasteners Reveal Panels • Engineered for Climate® • 30-year, non-prorated substrate warrantyJAMES HARDIE® FIBER CEMENT Tongue and Groove System Provides a precise fit and seamless lookLock Joint System Approved for vertical, soffit and ceiling applications © 2018 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All Rights Reserved. ASP1813 06/18 aspyredesign.com Product Specifications Width Texture Finish ProfileWidth ProfileDepth Artisan V-Groove Siding 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure)Smooth Primed 0.5 in 0.323 in Artisan Bevel Channel Siding 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure)Smooth Primed 1.68 in 0.263 in Artisan Shiplap Siding 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure)Smooth Primed 0.15 in 0.263 in Artisan Square Channel Siding 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure)Smooth Primed 1.43 in 0.263 in Artisan Lap Siding 5.25 in (4.0 in Exposure) 7.25 in (6.0 in Exposure) 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure) Smooth and Woodgrain Primed –– Artisan Beaded Lap Siding 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure)Smooth Primed –– Thickness: 5/8 in Length: 12 ft Weight: 4.55 lbs/sq ft Reveal Panel 47.5 in Smooth Primed or with ColorPlus Technology*–– Thickness: 7/16 in Length: 95.5 in *Talk to your local rep about ColorPlus Technology availability in your market. Reveal Fastening Products Countersunk Filler Filler usage rate for countersunk fastening application, 1 box of filler per 1 pallet (40 sheets) of Reveal Panels Countersinking Bit Usage rate for countersunk fastening application, 1 unit per 1 pallet (40 sheets) of Reveal Panels Countersunk Fasteners for Wood 1 5/8 in length x 0.39 in. HD, 316 SS, Bugle Head Square Drive Countersunk Fasteners for Steel 1 5/8 in length x 0.39 in. HD, 410 SS, Bugle Head #2 Square Drive Exposed Fasteners for Wood 1.5 in length x 0.189 in x 0.472 in HD, 10-12 SS, T20W Torx Pan Head Exposed Fasteners for Steel 1.125 in length x 0.169 in x 0.472 in HD, T20W Torx Pan Head Self-Drilling Reveal® Recess Trim Length 8 ft Reveal® Surround Trim Length 8 ft Outside Corner Trim Horizontal Trim Horizontal Trim Vertical Trim Vertical Trim Outside Corner Trim Drainage Flashing Trim Inside Corner Trim Horizontal Edge Trim J Channel Trim Vertical F Trim Drainage Flashing Trim by + Lock Joint Tongue and Groove Mitered corners can be crafted on-site with any Artisan profile Reveal® HZ5® Panel Effective July 2017 1. LIMITED WARRANTY. James Hardie Building Products Inc. (“Hardie”) warrants, for a period of thirty (30) years (the “Limited Warranty Period”) that when manufactured, the Reveal® HZ5® panels (the “Product”) comply with ASTM C1186, will resist damage caused by hail or termite attacks, and is free from defects in material and workmanship. This Limited Warranty extends only to (i) the first retail purchaser of the Product and the first transferee; or (ii) the first owner of the structure to which the Product is applied and (iii) the first transferee (each a “Covered Person”); for Products installed within the United States (except Alaska), Puerto Rico and Canada (except Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Newfoundland, Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and New Brunswick). 2. WHAT WE WILL DO. If, during the Limited Warranty Period, the Product is defective in materials or workmanship, Hardie will, in its sole discretion, either repair or replace the defective portion of the Product, or reimburse the Covered Person up to twice the current retail cost of the Product. Hardie’s repair, replacement, or refund of the defective portion of the Product or reimbursement pursuant to Section 2 of this Limited Warranty is the exclusive remedy for the Covered Person for any defect in materials or workmanship. HARDIE WILL NOT REFUND OR PAY ANY COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH LABOR OR ACCESSORY MATERIALS. 3. WHAT YOU MUST DO/CONDITIONS OF LIMITED WARRANTY. Warranty coverage under this Limited Warranty shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: a) A Covered Person must provide written notice to Hardie within thirty (30) days after discovery of any claimed defect covered by this Limited Warranty and before beginning any permanent repair. The notice must describe the location and details of the claimed defect and any additional information necessary for Hardie to investigate the claim. Photos of the Product, showing the claimed defect must accompany the notice. A claimant under this Limited Warranty must provide proof to Hardie that such claimant is a Covered Person as defined in Section 1 above. b) The Product must be installed according to Hardie’s printed installation instructions and must comply with all building codes adopted by federal, state or local governments or government agencies applicable to the installation. c) Upon discovery of a claimed defect, a Covered Person must immediately, and at a Covered Person’s own expense, provide for protection of all property that could be affected until the claimed defect is remedied, if applicable. Before any permanent repair to the Product, a Covered Person must allow Hardie or Hardie’s authorized agent to enter the property and structure where the Product is installed, if applicable, and examine, photograph and take samples of the Product. Any repairs initiated by or on behalf of a Covered person without prior authorization from Hardie may void the warranty. 5. WHAT IS NOT COVERED. This Limited Warranty does not cover damage or defects resulting from or in any way attributable to: (a) The improper storage, shipping, handling or installation of the Product (including, without limitation, failure of the Product to be installed in strict compliance with the Conditions of Limited Warranty set forth in Section 4(b) of this Limited Warranty) and/or improper installation of studs or other accessories; (b) Further processing, modification or alteration of the Product after shipping from Hardie; (c) Neglect, abuse, or misuse; (d) Repair or alteration; (e) Settlement or structural movement and/or movement of materials to which the Product is attached; (f) Damage from incorrect design of the structure; (g) Damage resulting from water infiltration; (h) Exceeding the maximum designed wind loads; (i) Acts of God including, but not limited to, tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, severe weather or other natural phenomena (including, but not limited to, unusual Page 1 | Reveal HZ5 panel limited product warranty climate conditions); (j) Efflorescence, peeling or performance of any third party paints, stains and/ or coatings; (k) Growth of mold, mildew, fungi, bacteria, or any organism on any surface of the Product (whether on the exposed or unexposed surfaces); (l) Lack of proper maintenance; and/or (m) Any cause other than material or manufacturing defects attributable to Hardie. 6. LIMITATION OF WARRANTY. THE ABOVE LIMITED WARRANTY IS THE EXCLUSIVE WARRANTY FOR THE PRODUCT. HARDIE DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE. In the event that applicable consumer law prohibits the disclaimer of an implied warranty, the above Limited Warranty shall not extend the time period of any such implied warranty. Some states do not allow limitations for consumers on how long an implied warranty lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may have additional rights, which vary from state to state. 7. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL HARDIE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY CLAIMS OF PROPERTY DAMAGE, BASED UPON BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation may not apply to you. 8. NO WAIVER. Hardie may, in its sole discretion, extend benefits beyond what is covered under this Limited Warranty. Any such extension shall apply only to the specific instance in which it is granted, and shall not constitute a waiver of Hardie’s right to strictly enforce the exclusions, disclaimers, and limitations set forth herein for any or all other circumstances. 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Limited Warranty contains and represents the only warranty extended by Hardie for the Product. No employee or agent of Hardie or any other party is authorized to make any other warranty in addition to those made in this Limited Warranty. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights which vary from state to state. 10. MODIFICATION OR DISCONTINUATION OF PRODUCT. Hardie reserves the right to discontinue or modify the Product at any time without notice. In the event that repair or replacement of the Product pursuant to this Limited Warranty is not possible, Hardie will fulfill any repair or replacement obligation under this Limited Warranty with a product of equal or greater value. 11. HOW TO OBTAIN LIMITED WARRANTY SERVICE. For warranty services, call 866-375-8603 or write Warranty Department, James Hardie Building Products, Inc., 10901 Elm Avenue, Fontana, California 92337. Reveal® HZ5® panel limited product warranty continued... PATCHING Fill dents, chips and cracks using a good quality cement patching compound (acrylic mortar patch), which can be found at your local Home Center or Hardware Store. PRODUCT REPLACEMENT Replace siding and trim products in accordance with James Hardie’s written installation instructions. CAULK REPLACEMENT When caulk is in need of replacing, carefully remove existing caulk and replace with a high quality, paintable latex caulk. For best results, use a latex caulk that complies with ASTM C834 or better. Caulking should be applied in accordance with the caulking manufacturer’s written application instructions. PAINT MAINTENANCE Remove any damaged, chipped or cracked paint. Prior to repainting, make sure that the surface area is properly cleaned and sanded. Repaint immediately using a good quality 100% acrylic paint. For best results, please refer to your paint manufacturer’s written specifications for application rates and required topcoats. Call 1-800-9-HARDIE or visit www.JamesHardiePros.com to obtain written installation requirements or for more detailed technical information. Homeowner Care and Maintenance Tips COMPLETE AND SAVE FOR YOUR OWN RECORDS Name of Owner _______________________________________________________________ Installation Address_____________________________________________________________ Name of Installing Contractor ______________________________________________________ Date Installed_______________________Contractor Phone Number ________________________ Page 2 | Reveal HZ5 panel limited product warranty © 2017 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All Rights Reserved. COM1714 07/17 TECHNICAL DATA SHEET General Description Reveal Panel System is a noncombustible fiber-cement panel siding, manufactured by James Hardie Building Products Inc. Product Dimensions Product Composition Reveal panels used in the Reveal Panel System are a Grade II, Type A, fiber-cement flat sheet as defined by ASTM C 1186. The panels are manufactured by the Hatschek process and cured by high pressure steam autoclaving. Code Compliance Reveal Panel System complies with: The 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 International Building Code® (IBC) Section 1404.10 and 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 International Residential Code® (IRC) Table R703.4 and SectionR703.10.1 as ASTM C 1186 Grade II, Type A (ISO 8336, Category A, Class 2) Fiber Cement. Wind Design: Design Tables 2 and 3 provide allowable capacity in mph for transverse load conditions for the Reveal Panel System attached to either wood framing, wood furring, metal framing, metal hat channel, metal or z-girt, tested in accordance to ASTM E 330. Wood framing and furring shall have a specific gravity of 0.42 or greater unless otherwise stated. Metal framing and furring shall be a minimum of 20 gauge (33 mil) structural to a maximum of 16 gauge (54 mil). Fire Characteristics: Reveal Panel System is classified as noncombustible when tested in accordance with ASTM E136. Reveal Panel System may be used in ASTM E119 fire resistance rated assemblies as listed by Warnock Hersey (for more information, contact James Hardie at 1-888 J-HARDIE (1-888 542-7343) or info@JamesHardie.com ): 60 minute designs JH/FCS 60- 01, JH/FCS 60-02, and JH/FCS 60-03. 120 minute designs JH/FCS 120-01 and JH/FCS 120-02. Reveal Panel System are Class A material according to 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 IBC Section 803.1.1. Surface burning characteristics in accordance with ASTM E 84: Flame Spread Index = 0 and Smoke Developed Index 5. The building official reserves the right to approve alternate materials, design and methods of construction based on research reports and/or tests based on 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 IBC Section 104.11, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015 IRC Section R104.11. Test reports can be furnished to the building official upon request, contact your local James Hardie sales representative. Effective April 2018 Page 1 of 9 Table 1, Reveal Panel System ASTM C 1186 Physical Properties and Supplementary Requirements Thickness – 7/16 inch Length – 95½ inches Width – 47½ inches All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence.Document Scope This document applies to the Reveal® Panel System. The use of this product is limited to buildings not exceeding 85 feet in height. Installation Requirements Reveal Panel System shall be installed on exterior walls braced in accordance with the applicable building code. A water-resistive barrier complying with Section 1403.2 of the IBC or Section R703.2 of the IRC is required to be installed. Install the Reveal Panel System in accordance with this report and the James Hardie published installation requirements. For a copy contact your local James Hardie sales representative or visit www.JamesHardiePros.com. Reveal® Panel System Page 2 of 9 Table 2, Wind Design Table, Exposed Fastening TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Allowable Wind Speed (mph) for Reveal Panel System (Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3)6 Product Product Thickness (in.) Width (in.)Fastener Type Fastener Spacing Frame Type Stud Spacing (in.) Allowable Design Load (psf) Building Height2,5 (ft.) B C D B C D 0-15 172 156 141 133 121 110 20 172 151 138 133 117 107 25 172 148 136 133 115 105 30 172 145 133 133 112 103 35 168 143 132 130 111 102 40 165 141 130 128 109 101 45 162 139 129 125 108 100 50 159 137 127 124 106 99 55 158 136 126 122 106 98 60 156 135 125 121 105 97 65 137 120 111 106 93 86 70 136 119 111 105 92 86 75 134 118 110 104 91 85 80 133 117 109 103 90 85 85 132 116 109 102 90 84 0-15 218 198 180 169 153 139 20 218 192 176 169 149 136 25 218 188 172 169 146 134 30 218 184 169 169 143 131 35 214 182 167 165 141 130 40 209 179 165 162 139 128 45 206 177 164 160 137 127 50 203 175 162 157 135 125 55 200 173 161 155 134 124 60 198 172 159 153 133 124 65 175 152 141 135 118 109 70 173 151 141 134 117 109 75 171 149 140 132 116 108 80 169 148 139 131 115 107 85 168 147 138 130 114 107 0-15 197 179 163 153 139 126 20 197 174 159 153 135 123 25 197 170 156 153 132 121 30 197 167 153 153 129 119 35 193 164 151 150 127 117 40 190 162 150 147 125 116 45 186 160 148 144 124 115 50 184 158 147 142 123 114 55 181 157 145 140 121 113 60 179 155 144 139 120 112 65 158 138 128 123 107 99 70 156 136 127 121 106 99 75 155 135 127 120 105 98 80 153 134 126 119 104 97 85 152 133 125 118 103 97 56.3 68.7 42.5 2015 IBC & IRC 2012 IBC (Ultimate Design Wind Speed, Vult3) 2012 IRC 2009, 2006 IBC & IRC7 (Basic Wind Speed, Vasd4 ) Wind exposure Wind exposure 16 Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 No. 10-12 x 1.5 in long x 0.472 in head diameter button head screw Configuration 2 (Exposed) [3 screws measuring 8" from panel edge and one screw equidistant in center] 2x4 wood (SPF) + wood furring (3/4" thick x min 1-1/2" wide)8,9 16 Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 No. 10-12 x 1.5 in long x 0.472 in head diameter button head screw Configuration 1 (Exposed) [2 screws measuring 12" from panel edge] 2x4 wood (SPF) + wood furring (3/4" thick x min 1-1/2" wide)8,9 16Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 No. 10-12 x 1.5 in long x 0.472 in head diameter button head screw¹ Configuration 3 (Exposed) [3 screws measuring 8” from panel edge and one screw equidistant in center] Minimum 20 gauge Steel (studs, z- girts or hat channel) Page 3 of 9 Table 2, Wind Design Table, Exposed Fastening (continued) TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Allowable Wind Speed (mph) for Reveal Panel System (Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3)6 Product Product Thickness (in.) Width (in.)Fastener Type Fastener Spacing Frame Type Stud Spacing (in.) Allowable Design Load (psf) Building Height2,5 (ft.) B C D B C D 0-15 219 199 180 170 154 140 20 219 193 176 170 150 137 25 219 189 173 170 146 134 30 219 185 170 170 143 132 35 214 182 168 166 141 130 40 210 180 166 163 139 128 45 207 177 164 160 137 127 50 204 175 163 158 136 126 55 201 174 161 156 135 125 60 199 172 160 154 133 124 65 175 153 142 136 118 110 70 173 151 141 134 117 109 75 172 150 140 133 116 109 80 170 149 139 131 115 108 85 168 148 139 130 115 107 0-15 199 181 164 154 140 127 20 199 176 161 154 136 124 25 199 172 158 154 133 122 30 199 169 155 154 131 120 35 195 166 153 151 129 118 40 191 164 151 148 127 117 45 188 162 149 146 125 116 50 185 160 148 144 124 115 55 183 158 147 142 123 114 60 181 157 146 140 122 113 65 160 139 129 124 108 100 70 158 138 129 122 107 100 75 156 137 128 121 106 99 80 155 135 127 120 105 98 85 153 135 126 119 104 98 0-15 186 169 153 144 131 119 20 186 164 150 144 127 116 25 186 161 147 144 124 114 30 186 157 145 144 122 112 35 182 155 143 141 120 111 40 179 153 141 138 118 109 45 176 151 140 136 117 108 50 173 149 138 134 116 107 55 171 148 137 132 114 106 60 169 146 136 131 113 105 65 149 130 121 115 100 93 70 147 129 120 114 100 93 75 146 127 119 113 99 92 80 144 126 118 112 98 92 85 143 126 118 111 97 91 1. Screws shall penetrate the metal framing at least three full threads. 2. Building height = mean roof height (in feet) of a building, except that eave height shall be used for roof angle Θ less than or equal to 10° (2-12 roof slope). 3. Vult = ultimate design wind speed. 4. Vasd = nominal design wind speed. 5. Linear interpolation of building height and wind speed is permitted. 7. 2009 IBC/IRC, 2006 IBC/IRC calculated using Importance Factor, I = 1. 8. Wood furring is preservative treated per AWPA. 9. Wood furring is specific gravity of 0.42 or greater per AFPA/NDS; or wood structural panel, conforming to DOC PS-1 or DOC PS-2 or APA PRP-108. 57.4 69.2 2015 IBC & IRC 2012 IBC (Ultimate Design Wind Speed, Vult3) 2012 IRC 2009, 2006 IBC & IRC7 (Basic Wind Speed, Vasd4 ) Wind exposure Wind exposure Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 No. 10-12 x 1.5 in long x 0.472 in head diameter button head screw¹ Configuration 4 (Exposed) [4 screws measuring 6" from panel edge and two screws spaced equidistant in center] Minimum 20 gauge Steel (studs, z- girts or hat channel) 16 6. Wind speed design assumptions per Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3: Kzt=1, Kd=0.85, GCp=-1.4 (h≤60), GCp=-1.8 (h>60), 24 Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 No. 10-12 x 1.5 in long x 0.472 in head diameter button head screw¹ Configuration 6 (Exposed) [4 screws measuring 6" from panel edge and two screws spaced equidistant in center] Minimum 20 gauge Steel (studs, z- girts or hat channel) 24 Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 No. 10-12 x 1.5 in long x 0.472 in head diameter button head screw Configuration 5 (Exposed) [4 screws measuring 6" from panel edge and two screws spaced equidistant in center] 2x4 wood (SPF) + wood furring (3/4" thick x min 1-1/2" wide)8,9 50 Page 4 of 9 Figure 1, Fastening Configurations, Exposed Fastening TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Page 5 of 9 Figure 1, Fastening Configurations, Exposed Fastening (continued) TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Page 6 of 9 Table 3, Wind Design Table, Countersunk Fastening TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Allowable Wind Speed (mph) for Reveal Panel System (Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3)6 Product Product Thickness (in.) Width (in.)Fastener Type Fastener Spacing Frame Type Stud Spacing (in.) Allowable Design Load (psf) Building Height2,5 (ft.) B C D B C D 0-15 160 145 132 124 113 102 20 160 141 129 124 109 100 25 160 138 127 124 107 98 30 160 135 125 124 105 96 35 157 133 123 122 103 95 40 154 132 121 119 102 94 45 151 130 120 117 101 93 50 149 128 119 115 99 92 55 147 127 118 114 99 91 60 145 126 117 113 98 91 65 128 112 104 99 87 80 70 127 111 103 98 86 80 75 126 110 103 97 85 80 80 124 109 102 96 84 79 85 123 108 102 95 84 79 0-15 176 160 145 136 124 112 20 176 155 142 136 120 110 25 176 152 139 136 118 108 30 176 149 137 136 115 106 35 172 147 135 134 114 105 40 169 145 133 131 112 103 45 166 143 132 129 111 102 50 164 141 131 127 109 101 55 162 140 130 125 108 101 60 160 139 129 124 107 100 65 141 123 114 109 95 88 70 140 122 114 108 94 88 75 138 121 113 107 93 87 80 137 120 112 106 93 87 85 135 119 112 105 92 86 0-15 159 145 131 123 112 102 20 159 141 128 123 109 99 25 159 138 126 123 107 98 30 159 135 124 123 104 96 35 156 133 122 121 103 95 40 153 131 121 119 101 94 45 151 129 120 117 100 93 50 148 128 118 115 99 92 55 146 127 117 113 98 91 60 145 125 117 112 97 90 65 128 111 103 99 86 80 70 126 110 103 98 85 80 75 125 109 102 97 85 79 80 124 108 101 96 84 79 85 123 108 101 95 83 78 37.1 44.8 36.77/16Reveal Panel System Configuration 8 (Countersunk) [4 screws per stud starting 6” from the edge] 2x4 wood (SPF) + wood furring (3/4" thick x min 4" wide)8,9 16 24 2x4 wood (SPF) + wood furring (3/4" thick x min 4" wide)8,9 Configuration 9 (Countersunk) [3 screws per stud starting 8” from the edge] Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 #8 x 1-5/8” long buglehead screw, 0.390” HD, countersunk with head of screw to be 1- 1.5mm below panel's surface Configuration 7 (Countersunk) [3 screws per stud starting 8” from the edge] #8 x 1-5/8" long buglehead screw, 0.390” HD, countersunk with head of screw to be 1- 1.5mm below panel's surface 47.57/16Reveal Panel System 2015 IBC & IRC 2012 IBC (Ultimate Design Wind Speed, Vult3) 2012 IRC 2009, 2006 IBC & IRC7 (Basic Wind Speed, Vasd4 ) Wind exposure Wind exposure 16 2x4 wood (SPF) + wood furring (3/4" thick x min 4" wide)8,9 #8 x 1-5/8” long buglehead screw, 0.390” HD, countersunk with head of screw to be 1- 1.5mm below panel's surface 47.5 Page 7 of 9 Table 3, Wind Design Table, Countersunk Fastening (continued) TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Allowable Wind Speed (mph) for Reveal Panel System (Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3)6 Product Product Thickness (in.) Width (in.)Fastener Type Fastener Spacing Frame Type Stud Spacing (in.) Allowable Design Load (psf) Building Height2,5 (ft.) B C D B C D 2015 IBC & IRC 2012 IBC (Ultimate Design Wind Speed, Vult3) 2012 IRC 2009, 2006 IBC & IRC7 (Basic Wind Speed, Vasd4 ) Wind exposure Wind exposure Allowable Wind Speed (mph) for Reveal Panel System (Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3)6 Product Product Thickness (in.) Width (in.)Fastener Type Fastener Spacing Frame Type Stud Spacing (in.) Allowable Design Load (psf) Building Height2,5 (ft.) B C D B C D 0-15 172 156 141 133 121 110 20 172 151 138 133 117 107 25 172 148 136 133 115 105 30 172 145 133 133 112 103 35 168 143 132 130 111 102 40 165 141 130 128 109 101 45 162 139 129 125 108 100 50 159 137 127 124 106 99 55 158 136 126 122 106 98 60 156 135 125 121 105 97 65 137 120 111 106 93 86 70 136 119 111 105 92 86 75 134 118 110 104 91 85 80 133 117 109 103 90 85 85 132 116 109 102 90 84 0-15 152 138 125 117 107 97 20 152 134 122 117 104 95 25 152 131 120 117 101 93 30 152 128 118 117 99 91 35 148 126 116 115 98 90 40 146 124 115 113 96 89 45 143 123 114 111 95 88 50 141 122 113 109 94 87 55 139 120 112 108 93 87 60 138 119 111 107 92 86 65 121 106 -94 82 - 70 120 105 -93 81 - 75 119 104 -92 80 - 80 118 103 -91 80 - 85 117 102 -90 79 - 1. Screws shall penetrate the metal framing at least three full threads. 2. Building height = mean roof height (in feet) of a building, except that eave height shall be used for roof angle Θ less than or equal to 10° (2-12 roof slope). 3. Vult = ultimate design wind speed. 4. Vasd = nominal design wind speed. 5. Linear interpolation of building height and wind speed is permitted. 7. 2009 IBC/IRC, 2006 IBC/IRC calculated using Importance Factor, I = 1. 8. Wood furring is preservative treated per AWPA. 9. Wood furring is specific gravity of 0.42 or greater per AFPA/NDS; or wood structural panel, conforming to DOC PS-1 or DOC PS-2 or APA PRP-108. #8 x 1-5/8” long buglehead self- tapping screw, 0.390” HD1, countersunk with head of screw to be 1- 1.5mm below panel's surface Configuration 10 (Countersunk) [3 screws per stud starting 8” from the edge] Minimum 20 gauge Steel (studs, z- girts or hat channel) 16 42.5Reveal Panel System 7/16 47.5 2015 IBC & IRC 2012 IBC (Ultimate Design Wind Speed, Vult3) 2012 IRC 2009, 2006 IBC & IRC7 (Basic Wind Speed, Vasd4 ) Wind exposure Wind exposure 6. Wind speed design assumptions per Analytical Method in ASCE 7-10 Chapter 30 C&C Part 1 and Part 3: Kzt=1, Kd=0.85, GCp=-1.4 (h≤60), GCp=-1.8 (h>60), GCpi=0.18. 33.224 Minimum 20 gauge Steel (studs, z- girts or hat channel) Configuration 11 (Countersunk) [3 screws per stud starting 8” from the edge] #8 x 1-5/8” long buglehead self- tapping screw, 0.390” HD1, countersunk with head of screw to be 1- 1.5mm below panel's surface 47.57/16Reveal Panel System Page 8 of 9 Figure 2, Fastening Configurations, Countersunk Fastening TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System Page 9 of 9 Figure 2, Fastening Configurations, Countersunk Fastening (continued) TECHNICAL DATA SHEET Effective April 2018 All national, state, and local building code requirements must be followed and where they are more stringent than the Reveal® Panel System installation requirements, state and local requirements will take precedence. Reveal® Panel System © 2017 James Hardie Building Products, Inc. All rights reserved. TM, SM, and ® denote trademarks or registered trademarks of James Hardie Technology Limited. Other marks or registered trademarks or service marks are the property of their respective owners. Distinctive Design Engineered to Last aspyredesign.com Artisan® Siding Profile Guide Artisan® Beaded Lap Siding Texture Thickness Height Available Finish Length Smooth 5/8 in 8.25 in (7.0 Exposure)Primed 12 ft Artisan® Bevel Channel Siding Texture Thickness Height Available Finish Length Profile Size Smooth 5/8 in 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure)Primed 12 ft 1.68 in Artisan® Square Channel Siding Texture Thickness Height Available Finish Length Profile Size Smooth 5/8 in 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure)Primed 12 ft 1.02 in LAP SIDING Artisan® Lap Siding Texture Thickness Height Available Finish Length Smooth and Woodgrain 5/8 in 5.25 in (4.0 in Exposure)7.25 in (6.0 in Exposure)8.25 in (7.0 Exposure)Primed 12 ft FLAT WALL PATTERNS Artisan® V-Groove Siding Texture Thickness Height Available Finish Length Profile Size Smooth 5/8 in 8.25 in (7.0 in Exposure)Primed 12 ft .50 in (.25 in each) Artisan® Shiplap Siding “Fineline Gap” Texture Thickness Height Available Finish Length Profile Size Smooth 5/8 in 10.25 in (9.0 in Exposure)Primed 12 ft .15 in © 2020 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All rights reserved. TM, SM, and ® denote trademarks or registered trademarks of James Hardie Technology Limited. ASP2005 01/20 Artisan® Lap Artisan® Shiplap Artisan® Square Channel Artisan® V-Groove Artisan® Bevel Channel Tongue and groove joints Designation: C 1186 – 08 Standard Specification for Flat Fiber-Cement Sheets 1 This standard is issued under the fixed designation C 1186; the number immediately following the designation indicates the year of original adoption or, in the case of revision, the year of last revision. A number in parentheses indicates the year of last reapproval. A superscript epsilon (e) indicates an editorial change since the last revision or reapproval. 1. Scope 1.1 This specification covers either untextured or surface textured fiber-cement flat sheets intended for exterior applica- tions such as claddings, facades, curtain walls, soffits, and so forth. 1.2 This specification is not applicable to asbestos-cement flat sheets (Specification C 220), gypsum-based boards (Speci- fications C 1396/C 1396M,C 1177/C 1177M,C 1178/ C 1178M), or particle boards (Terminology D 1554) discrete non-asbestos fiber-cement interior substrate sheets (Specifica- tion C 1288), fiber-mat reinforced non-asbestos cement interior substrate sheets (Specification C 1325), or cement-bonded particleboards (Specification BS 5669:Part 4) and (ISO 8335). 1.3 The values stated in inch-pound units are to be regarded as standard. The values given in parentheses are mathematical conversions to SI units that are provided for information only and are not considered standard. 1.4 The text of this standard references notes and footnotes which provide explanatory material. These notes and footnotes (excluding those in tables and figures) shall not be considered as requirements of the standard. 2. Referenced Documents 2.1 ASTM Standards: 2 C 220 Specification for Flat Asbestos-Cement Sheets C 1154 Terminology for Non-Asbestos Fiber-Reinforced Cement Products C 1177/C 1177M Specification for Glass Mat Gypsum Sub- strate for Use as Sheathing C 1178/C 1178M Specification for Coated Glass Mat Water-Resistant Gypsum Backing Panel C 1185 Test Methods for Sampling and Testing Non- Asbestos Fiber-Cement Flat Sheet, Roofing and Siding Shingles, and Clapboards C 1288 Specification for Discrete Non-Asbestos Fiber- Cement Interior Substrate Sheets C 1325 Specification for Non-Asbestos Fiber-Mat Rein- forced Cementitious Backer Units C 1396/C 1396M Specification for Gypsum Board D 1554 Terminology Relating to Wood-Base Fiber and Particle Panel Materials E84 Test Method for Surface Burning Characteristics of Building Materials 2.2 British Standards: 3 BS 5669:Part 4 Specification for Cement Bonded Particle- board 2.3 International Standards: 3 ISO 8335 Cement-bonded Particleboards—Boards of Port- land or Equivalent Cement Reinforced with Fibrous Wood Particles 3. Terminology 3.1 Definitions—Refer to Terminology C 1154. 4. Classification 4.1 Flat sheets covered by this specification are divided into two types, according to their intended application. 4.2 Type A—Sheets are intended for exterior applications, subjected to the direct action of sun, rain, or snow. They are supplied coated or uncoated. 4.3 Type B—Sheets are intended for exterior applications, not subjected to the direct action of sun, rain, or snow. NOTE 1—If sheets of Type B are used in an exterior application, where they are directly exposed to the weather, but are protected by impregnation or coatings, the weather resistance of the product may be altered by the quality of the protection. Specification of this protection, as well as the method for control and test, are outside the scope of this specification. 4.4 The sheets are further classified into four grades accord- ing to their flexural strengths. The manufacturer shall declare the type and grade of a given product in the literature for that product. 5. Composition and Manufacture 5.1 Composition—This specification is applicable to fiber cement flat sheets consisting essentially of an inorganic hy- draulic binder or a calcium silicate binder formed by the 1This specification is under the jurisdiction of ASTM Committee C17 on Fiber-Reinforced Cement Products and is the direct responsibility of Subcommittee C17.02 on Non-Asbestos Fiber Cement Products. Current edition approved May 1, 2008. Published May 2008. Originally approved in 1991. Last previous edition approved in 2007 as C 1186 – 07 e1. 2For referenced ASTM standards, visit the ASTM website, www.astm.org, or contact ASTM Customer Service at service@astm.org. For Annual Book of ASTM Standards volume information, refer to the standard’s Document Summary page on the ASTM website. 3 Available from American National Standards Institute (ANSI), 25 W. 43rd St., 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, http://www.ansi.org. 1 Copyright © ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. chemical reaction of a siliceous material and a calcareous material reinforced by organic fibers, inorganic non-asbestos fibers, or both. Process aids, fillers, and pigments that are compatible with fiber cement are not prohibited from being added. 5.2 Manufacture—These products are formed either with or without pressure and cured, either under natural or accelerated conditions, to meet the physical requirements of this specifi- cation. 6. Mechanical and Physical Requirements 6.1 Mechanical and physical properties shall be determined on uncoated product wherever practical. Where products are supplied coated, this material shall also be tested with the results identified as applying to coated material. 6.1.1 Sampling and inspection for mechanical and physical properties shall be conducted in accordance with Test Method C 1185. 6.2 Mechanical Requirements: 6.2.1 Flexural Strength—When tested in accordance with Test Method C 1185, the flexural strength shall not be less than the corresponding value for the appropriate grade in Table 1. Where manufacturers state minimum product strength, this shall be at the 4 % acceptable quality level (AQL) as are the values of Table 1. 6.2.2 Type A sheets for exterior applications shall be tested and specified in both the wet and equilibrium conditions. Type A sheets shall meet the minimum wet and minimum equilib- rium flexural strength requirements for the appropriate grade specified in Table 1. In addition, the average wet flexural strength of the sample shall not be less than 50 % of the mean equilibrium strength of the sample. 6.2.3 Type B sheets shall be specified and tested in the equilibrium condition only. NOTE 2—When sampling from continuous production, these tests may be conducted on dry, equilibrium, or saturated specimens, provided a relationship can be established between this testing and the specified values. 6.3 Physical Requirements: 6.3.1 Density—Nominal values and tolerances for density shall be stated by the manufacturer for each product. When tested in accordance with the method specified in Test Method C 1185, the value for density shall comply with the value stated by the manufacturer. 7. Dimensions and Tolerances 7.1 Method of Measurement—The method of measurement shall be in accordance with Test Method C 1185. 7.2 Nominal Length and Width—Fiber-cement sheets are typically supplied in nominal lengths of 96 in. (2438 mm), 120 in. (3048 mm) and nominal width of 48 in. (1219 mm). Greater or lesser nominal lengths and widths are not prohibited from being supplied. 7.3 Nominal Thickness—Fiber-cement sheets are normally available in thickness of 1⁄8 in. (3.5 mm) to 1 in. (25 mm), although thickness outside of this range is not prohibited from being supplied. Refer to Table 2. 7.4 Length and Width Tolerance—The tolerance from the nominal shall be 60.5 % with a maximum variation of 61⁄4 in. (6 mm). A tolerance of 61⁄8 in. is acceptable for dimensions less than 24 in. (609 mm). 7.5 Thickness Tolerance—The maximum difference be- tween extreme values of the thickness measurement within a sheet shall not exceed 15 % of the maximum measured value. Thickness variation from sheet to sheet shall not exceed the tolerances shown in Table 2. 7.6 Squareness Tolerance—The length of the diagonals shall not vary by more than 1⁄32 in./ft (2.6 mm/m) of the length of the sheet. Opposite sides of the sheet shall not vary in length by more than 1⁄32 in./ft (2.6 mm/m). 7.7 Edge Straightness Tolerance—The sheet edges shall be straight within 1⁄32 in./ft (2.6 mm/m) of length or width. 8. Workmanship, Finish, and Appearance 8.1 Workmanship—Sheets shall have a commercially uni- form surface on one side, and be free of major defects that will impair appearance, erection, use, or serviceability. 8.2 Finish—The surface of the sheet to be exposed shall be smooth, granular, or otherwise textured. 8.3 Color—The surface of the sheet shall be the natural color of the product or colored by the addition of mineral pigments, chemical impregnation, pigmented coating, veneer, or embedded mineral granules. 9. Inspection 9.1 Inspection of material shall be made at the point of shipment. The inspector representing the purchaser shall have free access to the carriers being loaded for shipment to the purchaser. The purchaser shall be afforded all reasonable and available facilities at the point of shipment for sampling and inspection of the material, which shall be conducted as not to interfere unnecessarily with the loading of the carriers. 9.2 Third party certification, either continuous or at regular intervals, shall be recognized as an alternative to batch inspec- tion. 10. Rejection 10.1 If the sampling fails to conform to any one of the requirements of this specification, a second sample from theTABLE 1 Flexural Strength Requirements NOTE—The values of Table 1 are lower limit values based on an acceptable quality level (AQL) of 4 % at a 90 % confidence level. Grade Wet Strength, psi (MPa) min Equilibrium Strength, psi (MPa) min I 580 (4) 580 (4) II 1015 (7) 1450 (10) III 1885 (13) 2320 (16) IV 2610 (18) 3190 (22) TABLE 2 Thickness Requirements Nominal Thickness, in. (mm) Tolerance, in. (mm) 1⁄8 –3⁄16 (3.5–5)60.02 (0.5) >3⁄16 –3⁄8 (>5–10)60.04 (1.0) >3⁄8 –5⁄8 (>10–16)60.05 (1.3) >5⁄8 –3⁄4 (>16–20)60.06 (1.5) >3⁄4 (>20)610 % thickness C1186–08 2 same lot shall be prepared and tested. The results of the retest shall be combined with the results of the original test, accord- ing to the sampling procedure, to determine compliance with this specification. 10.2 Failure to conform to any one of the requirements of this specification, upon retest as prescribed above, shall con- stitute grounds for rejection. 11. Product Marking 11.1 Identification—Product marking shall include trade- mark or other means of identification that ensures that the manufacturer and product category can be identified. The method of marking shall be stated in the manufacturer’s catalog. 12. Packaging and Storage 12.1 Commercial Packaging—Flat sheets shall be so shipped as to ensure acceptance by common carrier. There is no standard package. The material is usually in bulk or crated when so specified by the purchaser. 12.2 Storage—Flat sheets must be piled on sufficient firm supports that will keep the sheets level and flat. The sheets must be piled with the edges square and flush and covered to provide protection from the weather until used. 13. Keywords 13.1 air cured; appearance; autoclaved cured; cellulose fiber; density; edge straightness; exterior application; finish; flexural strength; frost resistance; heat/rain resistance; inspec- tion; length and width tolerance; mechanical properties; mini- mum equilibrium strength; minimum wet strength; moisture content; moisture movement; nominal length; nominal thick- ness; nominal width; non-asbestos fiber; packaging; physical properties; polyethylene fiber; polyvinyl alcohol fiber; pressure cured; rejection; sampling; sheet grading; shipping; squareness tolerance; storage; supplementary requirements; supplemen- tary tests; surface burning characteristics; thickness require- ments; thickness tolerance; third party certification; tolerance; Type A; Type B; type tests; warm water resistance; water absorption; water tightness; workmanship SUPPLEMENTARY REQUIREMENTS S1. Supplementary requirements for Type A and B sheets shall consist of once only supplementary test, with the manu- facturer’s statement of results provided upon customer’s re- quest. Fundamental changes in formulation or methods of manufacture, or both, shall require the subsequent retesting of the supplementary tests. S1.1 The following supplementary tests shall be required for Type A and B sheets: Supplementary Test Type A Type B Moisture Movement yes yes Water Absorption yes yes Moisture Content yes yes Water Tightness yes no Surface Burning Characteristics yes yes Frost Resistance yes no Warm Water Resistance yes no Heat/Rain Resistance yes no S1.2 Supplementary requirements shall be determined on uncoated product wherever practical. Where products are supplied coated, this material shall also be tested with the results identified as applying to coated material. S2.Moisture Movement—The linear variation with change in moisture content shall be stated as the percentage change in length based on a relative humidity change from 30 to 90 % in accordance with Test Method C 1185. S3.Water Absorption—Calculate the amount of water ab- sorbed from the increase in weight of the dried specimen during submersion for a period of 48 h. Express the water absorptions as the percentage by weight when tested in accordance with Test Method C 1185. S4.Moisture Content—State the percentage of moisture content of the fiber-cement sheet when conditioned at 50 6 5 % relative humidity and a temperature of 73 6 4°F (23 6 2°C) in accordance with Test Method C 1185. S5.Water Tightness—The specimens, when tested in accor- dance with Test Method C 1185, are not prohibited from showing traces of moisture on the underside of the sheet, but in no instance shall there be any formation of drops of water. S6.Surface Burning Characteristics—Fiber cement sheets of 1⁄4 in. (6 mm) shall have a reported flame spread index of 0 and a smoke developed index of not more than 5, when tested in accordance with Test Method E84. Sheets of thickness greater than 1⁄4 in. (6 mm) shall meet this specification or shall be formed at 1⁄4 in. (6 mm) thickness with the same formulation for test purposes. S7.Frost Resistance (Freeze/Thaw)—The specimens, when tested in accordance with Test Method C 1185 (Section 12 on Freeze/Thaw—Cladding Products), for 50 cycles, shall not show visible cracks or structural alteration such as to affect their performance in use. The ratio of retained strength as calculated from the test results shall be at least 80 %. S8.Warm Water Resistance—The specimens, when tested in accordance with Test Method C 1185, shall not show visible cracks or structural alteration, such as to affect their perfor- mance in use. The ratio of strengths as calculated from test results shall be reported. S9.Heat/Rain Resistance—The specimens, when tested in accordance with Test Method C 1185 (Section 14 on Heat/ Rain—Wall Structures), for 25 cycles, shall not show visible cracks or structural alteration of the sheets and frame assembly such as to affect their performance in use. C1186–08 3 ASTM International takes no position respecting the validity of any patent rights asserted in connection with any item mentioned in this standard. Users of this standard are expressly advised that determination of the validity of any such patent rights, and the risk of infringement of such rights, are entirely their own responsibility. This standard is subject to revision at any time by the responsible technical committee and must be reviewed every five years and if not revised, either reapproved or withdrawn. Your comments are invited either for revision of this standard or for additional standards and should be addressed to ASTM International Headquarters. Your comments will receive careful consideration at a meeting of the responsible technical committee, which you may attend. If you feel that your comments have not received a fair hearing you should make your views known to the ASTM Committee on Standards, at the address shown below. This standard is copyrighted by ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, United States. Individual reprints (single or multiple copies) of this standard may be obtained by contacting ASTM at the above address or at 610-832-9585 (phone), 610-832-9555 (fax), or service@astm.org (e-mail); or through the ASTM website (www.astm.org). C1186–08 4 1 © 2016 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All Rights Reserved. Local Support Design and Schematic Stage •Product Specifications •CAD Details •Code & Testing Documents •Best Practice Guidelines/Install Guides •Budgets & Estimates Bid and Construction Stage •Labor Alignment •Pre-Construction Meetings •Mock Wall Material •First Board, First Nail •Corrective Action Plan The Value of James Hardie Building Products to the MF Professional Unique Product Mix • On Time Jobsite Delivery • On Budget -Overall Risk Reduction - MN Installer Network •60+ Install Companies •Average # of Crews •2-10 •Average # of Installers Per Crew •5-10 •Over 350+ Sub Laborer's •Some Sub Crews work for Multiple Install Companies MF Additional Actions •Continuous Onsite Training •Local Tool & Install Support •Trade School Alignment •Grooming Pond (Summit) •Curriculum Support & Tools Provided •Out State Installer Access •Help to bring in out state Labor during shortages •Factory Training •Direct Access to JH Engineering •Online Portal for Advanced Installation Application •Tech Service Request Segment Specialists Technical Sales Specialists (12 James Hardie EE’s in MN) Hardie® siding Includes HardiePlank® HZ5® Lap Siding, HardiePanel® HZ5® Vertical Siding, HardieShingle® HZ5® Siding and HardieSoffit® HZ5® Panels Effective April 2021 1. LIMITED WARRANTY. James Hardie Building Products Inc. (“Hardie”) warrants, for a period of thirty (30) years (the “Limited Warranty Period”) from the date of purchase of Hardie Fiber-Cement HARDIEPLANK® HZ5®, HARDIEPANEL® HZ5®, HARDIESHINGLE® HZ5® and HARDIESOFFIT® HZ5® Products (each, the “Product”) for installation within the U.S. (except Alaska), Puerto Rico and Canada (except Yukon Territory, Northwest Territories, and Nunavut) that such purchased Product, when manufactured complies with ASTM C1186, will resist damage caused by hail or termite attacks, and is free from manufacturing defects in material and workmanship. This Limited Warranty extends only to (i) the first retail purchaser of the Product; (ii) the first owner of the structure to which the Product is applied and (iii) the first transferee (each a “Covered Person”). 2. WHAT WE WILL DO. If, during the Limited Warranty Period, the Product is defective in material or workmanship, Hardie will, in its sole discretion, either refund or replace the defective portion of the Product, or, during the first (1st) through the thirtieth (30th) year, reimburse the Covered Person for up to twice the original retail cost of the defective portion of the Product. After the 30th year, this Limited Warranty will expire and shall no longer be applicable. If the original retail cost cannot be established by the Covered Person to Hardie’s reasonable satisfaction, the cost shall be determined by Hardie in its sole and reasonable discretion. Hardie’s replacement of the defective portion of the Product or reimbursement pursuant to Section 2 of this Limited Warranty is the exclusive remedy for the Covered Person for any defect in materials or workmanship. HARDIE WILL NOT REFUND OR PAY ANY COSTS IN CONNECTION WITH LABOR OR ACCESSORY MATERIALS. 3. WHAT YOU MUST DO/CONDITIONS OF LIMITED WARRANTY. Warranty coverage under this Limited Warranty shall be subject to the following terms and conditions: (A) A Covered Person must provide written notice to Hardie within thirty (30) days after discovery of any claimed defect covered by this Limited Warranty and before beginning any permanent repair. The notice must describe the location and details of the claimed defect and any additional information necessary for Hardie to investigate the claim. Photos of the Product, showing the claimed defect must accompany the notice. A claimant under this Limited Warranty must provide proof to Hardie that such claimant is a Covered Person as defined in Section 1 above. (B) The Product must be installed according to Hardie’s printed installation requirements and must comply with all building codes adopted by federal, state or local governments or government agencies applicable to the installation. (C) Upon discovery of a claimed defect, a Covered Person must immediately, and at a Covered Person’s own expense, provide for protection of all property that could be affected until the claimed defect is remedied if applicable. Before any permanent repair to the Product, a Covered Person must allow Hardie or Hardie’s authorized agent to enter the property and structure where the Product is installed, if applicable, and examine, photograph and take samples of the Product. Any repairs initiated by or on behalf of a Covered person without prior authorization from Hardie may void the warranty. 4. WHAT IS NOT COVERED.  This Limited Warranty does not cover damage or defects resulting from or in any way attributable to:  (a) The improper storage, shipping, handling or installation of the Product, including, without limitation, failure of the Product to be installed in strict compliance with the Conditions of Limited Warranty set forth in Section 3 of this Limited Warranty and/or improper installation of studs or other accessories); (b) Further processing, © 2021 James Hardie Building Products Inc. All Rights Reserved. TM, SM, and ® denote trademarks or registered trademarks of James Hardie Technology Limited. HS1114 04/21 PATCHING Fill dents, chips and cracks using a good quality cement patching compound (acrylic mortar patch), which can be found at your local Home Center or Hardware Store. PRODUCT REPLACEMENT Replace siding and trim Products in accordance with James Hardie’s written installation instructions. CAULK REPLACEMENT When caulk is in need of replacing, carefully remove existing caulk and replace with a high quality, paintable latex caulk. For best results, use a latex caulk that complies with ASTM C834 or better. Caulking should be applied in accordance with the caulking manufacturer’s written application instructions. PAINT MAINTENANCE Remove any damaged, chipped or cracked paint. Prior to repainting, make sure that the surface area is properly cleaned. Repaint immediately using a good quality 100% acrylic paint. For best results, please refer to your paint manufacturer’s written specifications for application rates and required topcoats. Call 1-800-9-HARDIE or visit www.JamesHardiePros.com to obtain written installation requirements or for more detailed technical information. modification or alteration of the Product after shipping from Hardie; (c) Neglect, abuse, or misuse; (d) Repair or alteration; (e) Settlement or structural movement and/or movement of materials to which the Product is attached; (f) Damage from incorrect design of the structure; (g) Damage resulting from water infiltration; (h) Exceeding the maximum designed wind loads; (i) Acts of God including, but not limited to, tornados, hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, severe weather or other natural phenomena, (including, but not limited to, unusual climate conditions); (j) Efflorescence, peeling or performance of any third party paints, stains and/ or coatings; (k) Growth of mold, mildew, fungi, bacteria, or any organism on any surface of the Product (whether on the exposed or unexposed surfaces); (l) Lack of proper maintenance; and/or (m) Any cause other than material or manufacturing defects attributable to Hardie. 5. NO WAIVER. Hardie may, in its sole discretion, extend benefits beyond what is covered under this Limited Warranty. Any such extension shall apply only to the specific instance in which it is granted, and shall not constitute a waiver of Hardie’s right to strictly enforce the exclusions, disclaimers, and limitations set forth herein for any or all other circumstances. 6. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY. IN NO EVENT SHALL HARDIE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR SPECIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY CLAIMS OF PROPERTY DAMAGE, BASED UPON BREACH OF WARRANTY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, TORT, OR ANY OTHER LEGAL THEORY. Some states do not allow the exclusion or limitation of incidental or consequential damages, so the above limitation may not apply to you. 7. LIMITATION OF WARRANTY. THE ABOVE LIMITED WARRANTY IS THE EXCLUSIVE WARRANTY FOR THE PRODUCT. HARDIE DISCLAIMS ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING ANY IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR OTHERWISE. In the event that applicable consumer law prohibits the disclaimer of an implied warranty, the above Limited Warranty shall not extend the time period of any such implied warranty. Some states do not allow limitations for consumers on how long an implied warranty lasts, so the above limitation may not apply to you. This Limited Warranty gives you specific legal rights, and you may have additional rights, which vary from state to state. 8. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Limited Warranty contains and represents the only warranty extended by Hardie for the Product. No employee or agent of Hardie or any other party is authorized to make any other warranty in addition to those made in this Limited Warranty. 9. MODIFICATION OR DISCONTINUATION OF PRODUCTS. Hardie reserves the right to discontinue or modify the Product at any time without notice. In the event that replacement of the Product pursuant to this Limited Warranty is not possible, Hardie will fulfill any refund or replacement obligation under this Limited Warranty with a Hardie Product of equal or greater value. 10. HOW TO OBTAIN LIMITED WARRANTY SERVICE. (a) Call 866-375-8603; or (b) Write Warranty Department, James Hardie Building Products, Inc., 10901 Elm Avenue, Fontana, California 92337; or (c) Visit: http://claims.jameshardie.com Homeowner Care and Maintenance Tips COMPLETE AND SAVE FOR YOUR OWN RECORDS Name of Owner _______________________________________________________________ Installation Address_____________________________________________________________ Name of Installing Contractor ______________________________________________________ Date Installed_______________________Contractor Phone Number ________________________ HZ5® 30-Year Limited Product Warranty continued...   1      Date:  September 13, 2021  To:  Golden Valley Planning Commission  From:  Myles Campbell, Planner    Jason Zimmerman, Planning Manager  Subject:    RLUIPA Update      Summary  As staff has worked with the Planning Commission to prepare an update to the use tables found  within the zoning chapter, one point of discussion has been how to accommodate Places of  Assembly (religious uses) so that the City is not found to be in violation of the Religious Land Use  and Institutionalized Persons Act (RULIPA), which strives to protect religious institutions from  unduly burdensome or discriminatory land use regulations. In essence, it ensures that religious  uses are treated in a similar fashion to other, non‐religious, uses.    Background  In previous discussions in 2017, Commissioners had agreed with a recommendation from the City  Attorney that the number of zoning districts that allow for Places of Assembly be expanded to  ensure there are adequate options for any religious institution looking to locate in Golden Valley.  Currently, religious uses are limited to one subdistrict of the Institutional zoning district as well as  all of the Mixed Use zoning subdistricts, albeit with restrictions on size in Mixed Use.    Staff and Commissioners discussed additionally allowing these uses in the Light Industrial zoning  district, but were unsure if they should be permitted by‐right or regulated as conditional uses.  Additionally, commissioners had some concerns about introducing these community sues into a  business/economic focused zoning district. Additional research and conversations with the City  Attorney have shed new light on the subject.    Analysis  Attached with this memo is a legal brief shared with planning staff by the City Attorney.  The brief is specific to the history of religious land use challenges in Minnesota, being  authored by a retired MN Supreme Court Justice and an active lawyer with Larkin  Hoffman. The brief discusses two main types of violations in regard to RLUIPA: substantial  burden violations, and equal terms violations.    2    In summary the substantial burden violation is when a regulatory power compels a  religious use to modify or change their behavior or religious practice. In these cases, it  must be shown that this compelling is substantially burdensome for the religious use and  violates their first amendment protections to freedom of worship. Courts have  established four principal factors of analysis when determining if a substantial burden  claim has merit:    1. Whether the religious institution has a feasible alternative location from which it  can carry on its mission;  2. Whether the religious institution will suffer substantial delay, uncertainty, and  expense due to the imposition of the regulation;  3. Whether the plaintiff "obtained an interest in land without a reasonable  expectation of being able to use that land for religious purposes;" and  4. Whether there is evidence that the municipality's decision‐making process was  arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory    The equal terms violation is more salient to the ongoing discussion around where and  how places of assembly should be allowed in Golden Valley. These violations center  around whether a religious land use is treated on “less than equal terms” when compared  with a similar non‐religious use.     It is worth noting here that federal courts are split in terms of whether they favor the  plaintiff or the municipality. The minority viewpoint is followed by the eleventh circuit,  and holds that the plaintiff must only show a disparity in the text of an ordinance. The  majority viewpoint, followed by the third, fifth, seventh and ninth circuits, holds that the  plaintiff must actually identify a specific non‐religious user that is receiving better  treatment. Minnesota falls under the eight circuit of federal courts, which has not  adopted a standard in terms of reviewing equal terms claims, however one federal district  court did apply the majority rule standard recently to reject an equal terms claim.     Whether following the majority or minority ruling, what is clear is that in order not to run  afoul of RLUIPA, cities must treat potential religious uses in a similar fashion to non‐ religious uses that could be considered roughly equivalent. Most commonly this will  involve uses that can be considered “assemblies”. The purpose of the assembly can be  worship, deliberation, social gathering, or entertainment, so long as it constitutes a  gathering of people. The current proposal for the updated use tables included the  following equivalent non‐religious uses based on planning staff and the City Attorney’s  review:      Commercial uses   Indoor entertainment and amusement (Permitted) [think Escape Rooms, Game Show  Room, Virtual Reality Parlor, etc.]  3     Recreation buildings and structures (public and private), including gyms, skating rinks, etc.  (Permitted)    Light Industrial uses   Indoor entertainment and amusement (Permitted) [think Escape Rooms, Game Show  Room, Virtual Reality Parlor, etc.]   Recreation buildings and structures (public and private), including gyms, skating rinks, etc.  (Conditional)    Industrial uses   Recreation buildings and structures (public and private), including gyms, skating rinks, etc.  (Conditional)    Based on the proposed uses above, Places of Assembly would need to be allowed as  permitted uses in the Commercial and Light Industrial zoning districts, and as conditional  uses in the Industrial zoning district.    A potential option for the City if we do look to include this use in our light industrial and  commercial districts, would be to treat it as conditional use, and similarly classify indoor  entertainment and recreation facilities as conditional uses. In this fashion, the uses are  being treated equally, however as a conditional use the city would have more control on  the external impacts of the place of assembly (size, traffic, noise, etc.) A number of peer  cities have currently taken this stance in regard to places of assembly and religious uses,  as demonstrated below:    St. Louis Park Places of Assembly are conditional use  in Office, Commercial and Mixed Use  Zoning Districts  Crystal Religious Institutions are conditional  use in Residential, Commercial, and  Industrial Zoning Districts  Plymouth Religious Institutions are permitted in  the City Center, Business Campus,  Commercial/Industrial, Highway  Commercial, Office, and Institutional  Zoning Districts. Conditional use in  most residential zoning districts,  Community Commercial, and  Neighborhood Commercial Zoning  Districts  New Hope Conditional in R‐1 through R‐4  residential districts, and the  Residential‐Office District  4    Edina Conditional in R‐1 residential, and  Industrial Zoning Districts      Staff Request  This agenda item is for discussion only; staff is looking for feedback on which zoning districts  should allow Places of Assembly and how these should be regulated in order to be consistent  with other non‐religious uses.     Attachments  Legal Brief on Religious Land Use Challenges (18 pages)  eliminating RLUIPA's substantial burden protection in the land use context. It seems very unlikely that Congress intended this. Bethel World Outreach Ministries, 706 F.3d at 555 (internal citation and parenthetical omitted). 2.A Wide Variety of Regulations Have Been Held to Substantially BurdenReligious Exercise. Generally speaking, the level of finality necessary to sustain a RLUIPA claim obliges a place of worship to participate in the local land use permitting process. Congregation Rabbinical College of Tartikov, 280 F.Supp.3d at 474 (collecting cases). Therefore, some level of cost and expense is to be expected during this process and will generally not impose a substantial burden. Nevertheless, courts have concluded that zoning decisions imposing significant delay, uncertainty and expense may constitute a substantial burden in certain cases. Id. at 4 75. A wide variety of regulations have been held to substantially burden religious exercise. A few examples include: limitations on the size of facilities to be used by religious institutions (Id. at 474); restrictions on a retreat house's ability to serve food and beverage (Dilaura v. Twp. of Ann Arbor, 112 Fed. Appx. 445 (6th Cir. 2004)); and limitations on the number of homeless persons that may be served by a nonprofit operating on church premises (First Lutheran Church, 2018 WL 3233146, at *8). Instances where courts have found no substantial burden include where a plaintiff synagogue argued its existing building was insufficient because of minimal distraction occurring during services (Williams Island Synagogue, 358 F.Supp.2d at 1215-1216); and where parents of a religious school would be required to drive an additional 12.1 miles to drop children off at a religious school that was not the plaintiff's preferred school location (Livingston Christian Schools, 858 F.3d 996, l 009 (6th Cir. 2017), cert. denied, 138 S. Ct. 1696 (2018)). 3.Factors Guiding Substantial Burden Analysis. Over time various appellate courts have developed factors to be analyzed when conducting substantial burden analysis. Factors given weight in this analysis are: (1)Whether the religious institution has a feasible alternative locationfrom which it can carry on its mission; (2)Whether the religious institution will suffer substantial delay,uncertainty, and expense due to the imposition of the regulation; (3)Whether the plaintiff "obtained an interest in land without areasonable expectation of being able to use that land for religiouspurposes;" and (4)Whether there is evidence that the municipality's decisionmakingprocess was arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory Livingston Christian Schools, 858 F .3d at 1004 ( citations and internal quotation marks omitted). As suggested by factor no. 3, courts place significant weight upon the reasonableness of the