HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/16/1997BOOK
AGENDA
MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
December 16, 1997
6:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Maplewood City Hall
1830 East County Road B
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Approval of Minutes m November 25, 1997
4. Approval of Agenda
5. Unfinished Business
6. Design Review
a. Menard's Warehouse Proposal-- 2280 Maplewood Drive
7. Visitor Presentations
8. Board Presentations
9. Staff Presentations
a. Reminder: CDRB Volunteer for December 22 City Council Meetings--Ananth
b. CDRB Representative for January 12 City Council Meeting
c. Next CDRB Meeting: January 13
10. Adjourn
p:\com_dvpt\cdrb.agd
WELCOME TO THIS MEETING OF THE
COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
This outline has been prepared to explain the review process of this meeting. The
review of an item usually follows this format.
1. The chairperson of the meeting will announce the item to be reviewed.
2. The chairperson will ask the applicant or developer of the project up to the podium
to respond to the staff's recommendation regarding the proposal. The Community
Design Review Board will then discuss the proposed project with the applicant.
3. The chairperson will then ask the audience if there is anyone present who wishes
to comment on the proposal.
4. After everyone is the audience wishing to speak has given his or her comments, the
chairperson will close the public discussion portion of the meeting.
5. The Board will then discuss the proposal. No further public comments are allowed.
6. The Board will then make its recommendations or decision.
7. Most derisions by the Board are final, unless appealed to the City Council. You
must notify the City staff in writing within 15 days to register an appeal.
kd/misc\cdrb.agd
Revised: 6-18-93
MINUTES OF THE MAPLEWOOD COMMUNITY DESIGN REVIEW BOARD
1830 COUNTY ROAD B EAST, MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA
NOVEMBER 25, 1997
CALL TO ORDER
Chairperson Erickson called the meeting to order at 6 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL
Marvin Erickson Present
Marie Robinson Present
Ananth Shankar Present
Tim Johnson Present
Matt Ledvina Present
III. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Boardmember Robinson moved approval of the minutes of October 28, 1997, as submitted.
Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Boardmember Johnson moved approval of the agenda as submitted.
Boardmember Shankar seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
V. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There was no unfinished business.
VI. DESIGN REVIEW
A. Forest Lawn Memorial Park Addition--1800 Edgerton Street
Don Rundquist, manager of Forest Lawn, was present to discuss the proposal. Mr. Rundquist
stated that he was in agreement with the staff recommendation. He said his architect was
working on revising the building elevations to substitute the proposed metal-shingle siding
with white stucco. He said the stucco would blend in with the stone of the mausoleum and be
compatible. Secretary Ekstrand stated that he found the stucco to be a good alternative to
the metal. The board discussed the project with the applicant.
Boardmember Robinson moved the Community Design Review Board:
B. Approve the site and landscape plans (date-stamped October 22, 1997) for the crematory
addition at Forest Lawn Memorial Park, 1800 Edgerton Street. Approval is based on the
findings required by the code and subject to the property owner doing the following:
Community Design Review Board
Minutes of 11-25-97
-2-
1. Repeat this review in two years if the city has not issued a building permit for this
project.
2. Before getting a building permit, the applicant shall:
Submit a grading, drainage, utility and erosion control plan to the city engineer for
approval before obtaining a building permit. The erosion control plan shall be
meet all ordinance requirements.
b. Revise the building elevations for staff approval substituting the metal-shingle
siding with white stucco to match the mausoleum.
3. Paint all roof-top mechanical equipment if placed on the addition. The color shall
match the building color. Screening is not required.
4. Keep the lawn and plantings around the proposed addition watered. Based on Forest
Lawn's lawn maintenance practices, there is no need for in-ground lawn irrigation.
5. If any required work is not done, the city may allow temporary occupancy if:
a. The city determines that the work is not essential to the public health, safety or
welfare.
bo
The city receives a cash escrow or an irrevocable letter of credit for the required
work. The amount shall be 200 percent of the cost of the unfinished work. ,Any
unfinished landscaping shall be completed by June 1 if the building is occupied in
the winter or within six weeks of occupancy if the building is occupied in the
spring or summer.
c. The city receives an agreement that will allow the city to complete any unfinished
work.
6. All work shall follow the approved plans. The director of community development may
approve minor changes.
Boardmember Johnson seconded.
Ayes--all
The motion passed.
B. Signage as a Design ElementmDiscussion
Secretary Ekstrand stated that he reviewed this issue and came up with a list of pros and
cons on the subject. The cons outweighed the pros. Boardmember Ledvina stated his
concern that the CDRB should have the authority to require signage changes based on
aesthetics and better design. The board members discussed this further with some members
finding the code to be proper as it is.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Community Design Review Board -3-
Minutes of 11-25-97
Boardmember Ledvina moved the Community Design Review Board take no action on
pursuing a code change to give them authority to review signs as a design element during
project reviews.
Boardmember Johnson seconded. Ayes--all
The motion passed.
VISITOR PRESENTATIONS
There were no visitor presentations.
BOARD PRESENTATIONS
Boardmember Robinson discussed the outcome of the November 24 city council meeting which
she attended regarding the appeal of Buck's Furniture.
Boardmember Ledvina reported on the city council meeting he attended on November 10 to
discuss the Freedom Convenience Center.
STAFF PRESENTATIONS
A. CDRB Volunteers for December 8 and 22 City Council Meetings: Mr. Ledvina will attend the
December 8 meeting. Mr. Shankar will attend the December 22 meeting.
B. December 23 CDRB Meeting--Cancel Meeting Due to Holiday
C. Boardmember Ledvina reported to the board that he has applied for a seat on the planning
commission and will be interviewed by the city council on December 8.
X. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:03 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
LOCATION:
DATE:
City Manager
Thomas Ekstrand -Associate Planner
CUP Revision, Building Setback Variance, Parking Reduction Authorization
and Building Design ApprovaI-Menards
2280 Maplewood Drive
December 4, 1997
INTRODUCTION
Project Description
Gary Colby, of Menards, Inc., is proposing to build a 43,065-square-foot warehouse building.
Menards would use this building to store lumber and other large items. The present indoor
lumber storage area would be converted into retail space. Access to this area is proposed to be
from an existing curb cut north of the existing building and would route vehicles behind and
south of the store into the outside sales/storage yard. Menards would remove the existing entry
gate. Refer to the maps on pages 12-14 and the narrative on pages 15-18.
The proposed warehouse building would be constructed of precast concrete panels with a
green-colored, metal fascia on the north side. The west elevation would have a green accent
stripe. The applicant would restore the area adjacent to the proposed warehouse with grass and
plant 16 trees. Refer to the site plan on page 14.
Requests
Mr. Colby is requesting approval of:
A conditional use permit (CUP) revision to enlarge their facility. The code also requires that
the applicant get a CUP for the proposed building since it is closer than 350 feet to a
residential district. Refer to page 15.
A 25-foot setback variance for the proposed warehouse. The code requires that the
proposed building be set back 100 feet from the south lot lino the applicant is proposing
75 feet. Refer to page 16.
3. A parking reduction authorization for 412 spaces. The code requires 812 spaces on the
site---Menards is proposing 400.
4. Site and building design plans.
BACKGROUND
Refer to the Past Actions on page 9.
DISCUSSION
CUP Revision
Staff appreciates Menard's reasons for wanting to expand their facility. We must consider the
effect on the residential neighbors, though, and take into account the impact on this area.
Because of the potential for negative impact, staff cannot recommend approval. The code
requires that the city council make specific findings to grant a CUP. These are listed in the
ordinance on page 20. The following requirements cannot be met by this proposal:
1. The use would be designed in conformity with the city's code of ordinances.
This would not be the case since the applicant is seeking a 25-foot setback variance for the
proposed building and a substantial (51 percent) reduction in the required amount of
parking.
2. The use would not change the existing character of the surrounding area.
The proposed use would change the character of this neighborhood since:
The exterior of the proposed building would be massive--330 feet long and 30 feet tall.
This is a very large building, especially considering its close proximity to the adjacent
residential lots to the south. The existing eight-foot-tall fence would do very little to
screen this structure from the neighbors' views. The proposed 14-foot-tall fence,
likewise, would be virtually ineffective as a screening fence for a building this big.
All of the traffic going to the outside storage/sales yard would be channelled past the
abutting residential properties. This would disrupt the neighborhood by the concentrated
traffic and resulting noise by cars and trucks. This activity presently is more generalized
and farther away from the residential lots.
3. The use would not involve any activity that would be disturbing or cause a nuisance
because of excessive noise or unsightliness.
As I stated, the proposed changes would concentrate the traffic activity next to the residential
lots. This would increase noise and commotion. Furthermore, the building would be
immense when viewed from neighboring home windows.
Setback Variance
This request does not meet the findings required by state law for a variance. Strict enforcement
of the code would not cause the applicant undue hardship because of circumstances unique to
the property. The applicant could comply with the required 100-foot setback if they made the
building smaller or shifted its placement. There are no physical characteristics of the property
that prevent Menards from meeting code requirements.
The applicant is simply trying to maximize the amount of building they feel they can fit on the
site. Menards wants to expand their facility to better compete with Home Depot. As the statute
requires, however, "economic considerations alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if
2
reasonable use of the property exists under the terms of the ordinance." The site is presently
being fully utilized under the terms of the ordinance.
The statute also requires that variances, if granted, must be in keeping with the spirit and intent
of the ordinance. This finding cannot be made, based on the large reduction in the building
setback and the parking waiver requested.
The applicant is proposing to plant evergreen trees on the south side of the building for
additional screening of the building. The proposed trees would be six feet tall and spaced 30 to
80 feet apart. The planting of these trees should not be considered a basis for variance
approval. These trees would not provide any screening since they are two feet shorter than the
adjacent eight-foot-tall fence. At a spacing of 30 to 80 feet, they will provide virtually no
screening when they are mature.
Parking Reduction Authorization
Originally
In 1988, when Menards moved into this building, the city council granted a parking reduction
waiver for 61 fewer spaces than the code required--395 were proposed and the code required
456. Menard's square footage was much smaller then and their parking need was less. At that
time there were also several tenants that used the entire north end of the building. An old report
showed that Menards only had 50,000 square feet of retail space at that time. Now the Keller
Lake Lounge is the only remaining tenant and Menards is occupying 94,219 square feet of retail
space.
Existing Parking Count
The planning' commission raised the question that if the council allowed a parking reduction and
required 395 spaces, why are there only 361 according to the site plan? There are several likely
reasons for this. The parking lot striping has changed to meet ADA (Americans with Disabilities
Act) handicap-parking requirements. This eliminated several parking spaces to provide
handicap stalls with loading aisles. The applicant striped more spaces in some areas and fewer
in others, but the concept of the overall parking layout was maintained. Shopping-cart corrals
have also been added and this eliminated several spaces. The stripes for fifteen spaces west of
the storage-yard gate are worn away and can barely be seen.
Parking Requirements
City code requires one space for each 200 square feet of retail space, one space for each 50
square feet of patron area for the Keller Lake Lounge, one space for four seats in the banquet
hall and one for each 1000 square feet for the warehouse. This breaks down to:
1. 123,136 square feet of Menards retail divided by 200 equals 616 spaces.
2. 3,900 square feet of patron area in the bar divided by 50 equals 78 spaces.
3. A seating capacity of 299 persons in the banquet hall divided by 4 equals 75 spaces.
4. 43,065 square feet of proposed warehouse building divided by 1000 equals 43 spaces.
Required total spaces = 812
3
Parking Analysis
The code requires 812 parking spaces for Menards. The applicant is proposing 400
spaces---412 fewer than the code requires for a variance request of 51 percent. Eighty six of the
spaces shown on the plan, furthermore, would not be convenient for use by Menards since they
are north and east of the building near the Keller Lake Lounge. Menards could only feasibly use
314 of the proposed spaces.
Staff cannot support such a large reduction in the parking requirements. The city sometimes
grants parking reductions when they are minimal or when there is an opportunity to share
parking spaces with adjacent businesses that have different hours of operation. Also, there is
generally room for expansion if needed. This is simply too large of a request and the applicant
has not provided any reasons to support it.
Site and Building Design Concerns
I have already discussed the problems with the site plan (traffic concentration adjacent to the
residential lots and the building placement with its excessive height in such a close proximity to
the neighbors). Regarding landscaping, sixteen trees would not do much for site enhancement
and would provide no screening on the south side of the building for the neighbors. The
increase in green space would enhance the site from the Highway 61 view, but would not benefit
the neighbors to the south.
Neighbors' Concerns
The discussion so far has addressed concerns like on-site traffic commotion/disturbance and
building size/location. Two neighbors also questioned the frequency of accidents at County
Road B and Maplewood Drive. They believe that there is an existing traffic congestion problem
presently and that it would increase substantially if this project was built.
I asked Chief Ryan for an accident report for this intersection. The total number of accidents at
this intersection from January 1, 1995 to November 1, 1997 is 17--one involving personal injury,
15 involving property damage and one hit and run. This data tells us how many accidents
occurred in the past three years. There is no way to determine what impact the proposed
Menards changes would have on traffic at this intersection other than we can assume it would
increase as their business increases.
Compliance with Current CUP Requirements
At the planning commission meeting on November 17, several abutting neighbors south of the
proposed warehouse building complained about after-hour noise from the storage yard. The
CUP required that the "hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7:00 a.m. to
10 p.m." The condition is not clear if it was meant to refer to the maximum hours the storage
yard should be available to customers or if it was meant to also pertain to activities like stocking
materials and deliveries. Whatever the intent, noisy activities after 10 p.m. should not be
allowed. If the city council wishes to clarify this requirement and make it more specific, they
would need to revise the CUP.
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
A. Deny the request for a conditional use permit revision to enlarge the Menards store, 2280
Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons:
The proposed use is not designed in conformity with the city's code of ordinances.
Menards is requesting a 25-foot building setback variance and a substantial (51 percent)
parking-reduction authorization of 412 spaces (code requires 812 spaces; Menards is
proposing 400).
2. The use would change the character of the surrounding area because:
a. The height of the proposed building would be excessive due to the structure's close
proximity to the adjacent residential properties.
All of the traffic going to the outside storage/sales yard and the proposed warehouse
would be channelled past the abutting residential properties concentrating the
resulting noise and commotion to this area.
The proposal would involve activity that would be disturbing or cause a nuisance
because of excessive noise or unsightliness. The proposed changes would concentrate
traffic next to the residential lot lines creating the disturbance of increased noise and
commotion. The building would be unsightly primarily due to its large size and its close
proximity to the residential lots to the south.
Deny the request for a 25-foot building setback variance for the proposed warehouse
building at Menards, 2280 Maplewood Drive, based on the following reasons:
1. Strict enforcement of the code would not cause Menards undue hardship because of
circumstances unique to the property. The applicant could comply with the required
100-foot setback if they made the building smaller or moved it to a conforming location.
There are no physical characteristics unique to the property preventing the applicant from
meeting the setback requirements.
2. The reason, stated by the applicant, for enlarging the store is to compete better with the
competition. The state law requires, however, that "economic considerations alone shall
not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use of the property exists under the terms
of the ordinance." The site is presently being fully utilized under the terms of the
ordinance.
3. The variance would not be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance because
of the large exterior mass of the proposed warehouse. This issue was recently
addressed in the commercial property study.
C. Deny the request for a 51 percent parking reduction authorization from 812 to 400 spaces,
based on the following reasons:
1. The reduction of spaces by 412 (51 percent) is excessive.
2. The applicant has not provided any justification for this request based on the proposed
square footage, only based on their current building size.
3. There is no opportunity to share parking with neighboring businesses which is a typical
way to justify a parking space reduction.
D. Deny the building and site plans, unless the city council first approves the conditional use
permit, the 25-foot building setback variance and the parking reduction authorization.
CITIZEN COMMENTS
I surveyed the 35 surrounding property owners within 350 feet of Menards for their opinion of this
request. Of the 14 replies, six were in favor, six objected and two had no comment.
In Favor
1. To be competitive in today's business climate you must always be improving. Plus it looks
like it will be good for the residential area and also the community as it brings more people to
our area. (Countryside Motors, 1180 Highway 36)
2. It expands a high end usage of the corner and will, hopefully, promote further upgrading of
the area. (Ells and Holmen, 10037 Washburn Avenue, Bloomington)
They need it for their business. They are a good neighbor. (occupant, 2228 Maplewood Dr.)
Go for it--it will increase business trafficmnot be detrimental to residential and increase
property's value---wish Menards good luck. (Embers, Inc.)
Opposed
1. The property is too small for this size and type of development. Residential-friendly
development is preferred (green space, park, etc) (Dupre and Forbes, 1071 Country Rd. B)
Too much noise and too much traffic and big trucks. (Bisbee, 1193 Lark Avenue)
The area is not large enough to accommodate the proposed expansion. The property
should be turned back to "green space." Plant trees. Give it back to nature. We also have
the following concerns (Valento, 1081 County Road B):
a. The traffic at Highway 61 and County Road B is already too congested. This proposal
would make it much worse.
b. This proposal would concentrate the congestion behind our house. Now, all activity is
spread out.
c. All the traffic in the outdoor storage/sales yard would be funnelled directly behind our
house. Every car and truck would go past our house.
d. We do not want any roof-mounted equipment on the building that would cause a noise or
visual nuisance.
e. They should accept the fact that this may simply need to be a smaller Menard store
without the expanded warehouse and retail proposed.
This expansion is too large for the space. The 30 foot high building would be visible and
unsightly to neighbors and devalue the existing residential property. Heavy traffic and
exhaust fumes and noise so close to existing residential property is unacceptable. The tall
unsightly commercial building in the back yard of residents is unacceptable. (Anderson,
1101 County Road B)
Refer to the survey reply on page 17 and the letter on page 18 (Anderson, 2255 Duluth
Street)
6. Refer to the letter on page 19. (Bobick, 1115 County Road B)
REFERENCE INFORMATION
SITE DESCRIPTION
Site size: 13.48 acres
Existing land use: Menard's outdoor storage/sales area and unstriped paved parking lot
Property Owner: Menard, Inc.
SURROUNDING LAND USES
North: Maplewood Drive and Highway 36 interchange
South: Single dwellings and Citgo Motor Fuel Station
West: Maplewood Drive and frontage road
East: Menard's outdoor storage yard
PAST ACTIONS
March 28, 1988: The city council approved Menard's CUP and granted a parking reduction
authorization.
January 23, February 13, March 27 and April 6, 1989: The council changed the CUP conditions.
The changes were to clarify the screening fence and storage rack height requirements.
March 26, 1990: The council reviewed the CUP.
November 14, 1994, and September 11, 1995: The council amended the CUP conditions.
April 8, 1996: The council amended the CUP conditions because of a request for a seasonal,
outdoor greenhouse and plant sale operation. Refer to the current CUP conditions on page 20.
May 20, 1996: The council again reviewed the CUP and directed Menards, Citgo, staff and the
neighbors to meet and discuss several issues raised by one of the neighbors. These issues
were regarding the need for an additional screening fence, engine noises, fumes, parking and
cross traffic between Citgo and Menards.
August 12, 1997: The council reviewed the CUP again. The previous concerns and problems
have been resolved. The council moved to review the CUP again only if a problem develops.
PLANNING
Land Use Plan designation: M-1 (light manufacturing)
Zoning: M-1
Ordinance Requirements
Section 36-187 requires a CUP for building construction in a M-1 district that would be closer
than 350 feet to a residential zone.
Section 36-448(b) requires an amended CUP for any enlargement or intensification of use of an
existing CUP.
Section 36-22(a) requires parking for Menards at the ratios of one space for each 200 square
feet of retail space and one for each 1000 square feet of warehouse space. This section also
requires parking for the bar and banquet hall at the ratios of one space for each 50 square feet
of patron area for the bar and one for each four seats in the banquet hall.
Section 25-70 requires that the community design review board (CDRB) make the following
findings to approve plans:
That the design and location of the proposed development and its relationship to
neighboring, existing or proposed developments and traffic is such that it will not impair the
desirability of investment or occupation in the neighborhood; that it will not unreasonably
interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring, existing or proposed developments; and
that it will not create traffic hazards or congestion.
That the design and location of the proposed development is in keeping with the character of
the surrounding neighborhood and is not detrimental to the harmonious, orderly and
attractive development contemplated by this article and the city's comprehensive municipal
plan.
That the design and location of the proposed development would provide a desirable
environment for its occupants, as well as for its neighbors, and that it is aesthetically of good
composition, materials, textures and colors.
Findings for CUP Approval
Section 36-442(a) states the city council must base their approval of a'CUP on nine standards.
Refer to the ordinance on page 20.
Findings for Variance Approval
State law requires that the City Council make the following findings to approve a variance from
the zoning code:
1. Strict enforcement would cause undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the
property under consideration.
2. The variance would be in keeping with the spirit and intent of the ordinance.
]0
"Undue hardship", as used in granting of a variance, means the property in question cannot be
put to a reasonable use if used under conditions allowed by the official controls. The plight of the
landowner is due to circumstances unique to his property, not created by the landowner, and the
variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of the locality. Economic considerations
alone shall not constitute an undue hardship if reasonable use for the property exists under the
terms of the ordinance.
CITY ENGINEER'S COMMENTS
Menards should provide a gate and clear access to the sanitary sewer manhole on the site as
part of this request.
FIRE MARSHAL'S COMMENTS
The proposed warehouse building must be equipped with an automatic sprinklering system if
there is not full access around the building.
p:sec9\menards2.wrh
Attachments:
1. Location Map
2. Property Line / Zoning Map
3. Site Plan
4. Applicant's Conditional Use Permit Justification dated October 1, 1997
5. Applicant's Variance Justification dated October 7, 1997
6. Survey Reply from Gordon and Mary Anderson date-stamped October 20, 1997
7. Letter from Gordon and Mary Anderson date-stamped October 20, 1997
8. Letter from Pete and Liz Bobick dated October 26, 1997
9. CUP Ordinance
10. Current CUP Conditions dated April 8, 1996
11. Plans dated September 30, 1997 (separate attachment)
]!
Attachment 1
C
2880N
2640N
2
ROAD
COUNTY
.... : ~ /~ GERVAIS
1. SUMMTT CT.
2. COUhrTRYVIE-W CIR.
5. DULUTH CT.
4. LYDIA
AVE
Attachment 2
....... & __ 4k~
~ MENARDS 43
VW/SAAB
.90,~c
(~' 2255
I 01 o,t..
~!
-, ~
1143
N,. -¢OUNT~ ROAD
1136
t 13 ~
N
Attachment 3
SCREENING STRUCTURE DETAIL
LEGEND
./'/1/1/////1/1A
1/11111111111111~
~ITE PLAN
MENARDS TRACT
587,033 ~ SO. FT.
13.48 · ACRES
Proposed Building
SITE
PLAN
14
Attachment 4
O~ober 1, 1997
City of Maplewood:
RE: Menards Conditional Use Application
Menard, Inc. is proposing to expand its existing home improvement center located
at 2280 Maplewood Drive. This expansion is necessary to bring this store closer to the
standards of our newer prototype stores and to allow us to compete more effectively with
our competitors.
As a part of this proposal we are proposing many improvements, including:
The existing 28,917 sq. ft. drive through warehouse area will be converted to sales
area. This will allow us to re-merchandise the interior of the store in an effort to
expand our product lines and make the aisles wider.
The existing yard entrance will be relocated to the northeast side of the property
requiring all vehicles to enter the yard from the north. This will reduce the amount
oftraftic in the yard area adjacent to the residential areas.
The existing screening fence along the south side of the yard will be replaced with a
new fourteen foot high screening fence. This will greatly improve the appearance of
the existing fence.
The existing welded wire fence along the parking lot will also be replaced with a
fourteen foot high solid screening fence that will help to conceal the yard activities
from the parking lot.
A new 43,065 sq. ft. warehouse will be built at the west end of the outside storage
area. The warehouse will be set back seventy-five feet from the south property line.
From the existing fence line to the west this seventy-five feet will be sodded and
landscaped. The exterior walls of the warehouse will be precast concrete panels
with no openings in the south or west walls.
The remainder of the existing outlot will be sodded and landscaped. This will
eliminate the current traffic situations that exist on the outlot.
Thank you for your consideration.
4777 MENARD DRIVE
15
EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625
TELEPHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX: 715-876-5901
Attachment 5
O~ober 7, 1997
City of Maplewood
RE: Building Set-Back Variance and Parking Variance
The proposed Menards expansion of the existing store will require two variances.
The first variance will be a building set-back variance for the proposed warehouse.
Ordinance No. 774 would require a 100' set-back from the south property line. A 75' set-
back is being proposed. As shown on the site plan, the majority of this 75' set-back will be
sodded and landscaped providing for additional screening of the building wall.
The second variance will be a parking variance. Section 36-22 of the zoning
ordinance would require 616 parking spaces. 400 parking spaces is being proposed. There
are currently 361 parking spaces on site. As a part of the proposed expansion 39 parking
spaces will be added. The existing Menards store has been in operation since 1989 and we
have not experienced a parking deficiency in that time. With the additional 39 proposed
spaces we do not anticipate any parking problems after the expansion.
This property is currently zoned for commercial use. The expansion of our existing
store is consistent with the Conditional Use Permit that currently exists on the property.
4777MENARD DRIVE
16
EAU CLAIRE, WI 54703-9625
TELEPHONE (715) 876-5911 FAX: 715-876-5901
Attachment 6
CITY'OF
MAPLEWOOD
1830 E. COUNTY ROAD B MAPLEWOOD, MINNESOTA 55109
OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6 ! 2-7704 560
~ORUON & MA~Y ANIJE~5ON
2255 DULUTH STREET N.
MAPLEWOOD, MN 55109
' October 15, 1997
................... NEIGHBORHOOD SURVEY
This is to get your opinion on an application the city received for property in your neighborhood.
MenardS is proposing to build a 43,065 square foot warehouse building on their propeR),. Refer
to the enclosures. To build this structure, they must get a conditional use permit from the city
council. They are also asking for a setback variance. The code requires that this building have
a 100 foot setback from the adjacent residential property line; theY are proposing 75 feet.
I need your opinion to help me prepare a recommendation to the planning commission and city
council. Please write your opinion and comments below. Return only this cover letter (and any
attachments on which you have wdtten comments) to me in the enclosed postage-paid
envelope by October 27, 1997. -
If you would like further information, please call me at 770-4563 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. I
will send you a notice of any public headngs on this application. Thank you for your comments.
I will give them careful consideration.
THOMAS EKSTRAND - ASSOCIATE PLANNER .
Pf
Enclosures " - - - '"
I am in favor of this proposal because ~
I have no comment. . _,. ,//
7~.1 Object. to this/p.r.oRos~, because , '
If you object, describe below or draw on the enclosed map
make this application acceptabl~. If no chan!les wp~ld make it accep~tabl?, howphould
th,s prol:~rty I:~d~eveloped. '
(Menards/S
Attachment 7
Attachment 8
~9
Attachn~ent 9
Z
e~
Attachment 10
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approve the above-
described conditional use permit.~because:
1. The use would be located, designed, maintained, constructed and
operated to be in conformity with the City's comprehensive Plan
and Code of Ordinances.
2. The use would not change the existing or planned character of
the surrounding area.
3. The use would not depreciate property values.
4. The use would not involve any activity, process, materials,
equipment or methods of operation that would be dangerous,
hazardous, detrimental, disturbing or cause a nuisance to any
erson or property, because of excessive noise, glare, smoke,
ust, odor, fumes, water or air pollution, drainage, .wate. r run-
off, vibration, general unsightliness, electrical inserTerence
or other nuisances.
5. The use would generate only minimal vehicular traffic on local
streets and would not create traffic congestion or unsafe access
on existing or proposed streets.
6. The use would be served by adecLuate public facilities and
services, including streets, pomice and fire protection,
drainage structures, water and sewer systems, schools and parks.
7. The use would not create excessive additional costs for public
facilities or services.
B. The use would maximize the preservation of and incorporate the
site's natural and scenic features into the development design.
9. The use would cause minimal adverse environmental effects.
Approval is subject to the following conditions:
1. Adherence to the site plan dated March 15. i988, and the
greenhouse plan da'ted January B. 1996, unless a change is
approved by the City's Community Design Review Board. The
Director of Community Development may approve minor changes.
2. Compliance with the following screening-fence requirements:
a) The property owner shall continue to have, and keep in
a maintained condition, wooden screening-fences as
fol 1 ows:
1) An eight.foot-tall fence running north-'$outh on
the west side of 1071 County Road B. This
section of fence shall have :no parking' signs
di splayed.
2) An eight-foot-tall fence running east-west from
the northwest corner of 1071 County Road B to
the northwest corner of 1101 County Road B.
3) A 14.foot-tall fence behind 1101 and 1115
CountY Road B: al so along the west 1 ot 1 ine of
1115 County Road B where it abuts Menard's.
4) A 14.foot-tall fence along the west side of the
outside storage yard.
21 4-B-96
b)
5)
A lO.foot-tall fence along the remaining south
property line of Henard's and northerly along
the east lot line to the point where the
property jogs to the east.
No material on the storage racks, adjacent to the fence
behind 110! and 1115 County Road B, shall extend above
the 14.foot-tall fence.
c)
No more than 2-1/2 feet of the 17-!/2~foot-tall storage
racks shall be visible from the homes to the south that
are at street level along County Road B. This excludes
those houses that sit higher on a hill.
d) Menard's shall be responsible for the safety of the
neighbors in regard to the materials stored over the
height of the fence.
3. Hours of operation in the storage yard shall be limited to 7:00
A.M. to 10:00 P.M.
4. An exterior public address system shall not be allowed.
5. All lighting in the storage yard that is not needed for site
security shall be turned off after business hours.
6. The City Council shall review this permit in one year.
7. Plowed snow shall be stored away from the southern and eastern
property lines to avoid runoff problems on residential property.
B. Menard's shall store all their materials within the fenced
storage area. Plant displays shall be permitted outside the
greenhouse.
9. Sanitation facilities shall be provided by Menard's for the
employees.
I~ Condition 10 to read: 'The owner or operator s~all p~vid?
proof of all state and local permits requireo, va/~o ano
displayed.'
11. Greenhouse hours of operation shall coincide with those of
Menard's.
1,1-,
Condition 12 to read: 'The greenhouse structure' shall be
temporary. The owner or operator shall remove the
greenhouse after each three-month season. Owner shall
designate on a sign where majority of products are grown.'
22