01-26-98 PC Agenda
.
I.
AGENDA
GOLDEN VAllEY PLANNING COMMISSION
Regular. Meeting
Golden Valley City Hall, 7800 Golden Valley~()ad
, Council Chambers
Monday. January 26,1997
7pm
ApprQvalot Minutes... January 12, 1998
II.
, .,-> ....... .. .. -:,' " --.-,,' -' ",-" .,...
~.blic H.....ng -Amendment (No. 11 to thtJ. .p~",
Plan for P.U.D. No. 75 .
Apptie8rlt: Menard. 'Inc.
Addre$s:.' ~.Wayzata Blvd., Golden Valley,. Mi~ota
Purpo$e: Amend P.U~D. No. 75 which would allow for additionalCOristl'tJCfion
on the west side of the existingstructureover"and~tlwhat
was approved at a City Council meeting on JtJly15/1~7;af1d
eliminate the proposed addition on the northsid$;OftM buikling
Which was approved by the City Council at.itsm.-ng .ofJulv 15.
.
~ SHORT RECESS -
III. Repott$on>~ingsofthe Housing and RedevelopmentAtlthorit~fCity CQuncil
andBoavd of ZonirigAppeals
IV. Other BU$iness
A. Planning Commissioner attendance at. Sensible landua~;~Ofl','
~\W1Cheon, January 28, 1998 .
V. ~nt
.
;,
Planning Commission Guidelines for Public Input
The Planning Commission is an advisory body, created to advise the City Council on land use.
The Commission will recommend Council approval or denial of a land use proposal based upon.
the Commission's determination of whether the proposed use is permitted under the Zoning .,
Code and the Comprehensive Plan, and whether the proposed use will, or will not, adversely
affect the surrounding neighborhood.
The Commission holds informal public hearings on land use proposals to enable you to learn,
first-hand, what such proposals are, and to permit you to ask questions and offer comments.
Your questions and comments become part of the record and will be used by the Council, along
with the Commission's recommendation, in reaching its decision.
With the completion of the informal public hearing(s) there will be a short recess before the
commission continues with the remainder of the agenda.
To aid in your understanding and to facilitate your comments and questions, the Commission
will utilize the following procedure:
1. The Commission Chair will introduce the proposal and the recommendation from staff.
Commission members may ask questions of staff.
2. The proponent will describe the proposal and answer any questions from the
Commission.
3.
The Chair will open the public hearing, asking first for those who wish to speak to so
indicate by raising their hands. The Chair may set a time limit for individual
questions/comments if a large number of persons have indicated a desire to speak.
Spokespersons for groups will have a longer period of time for questions/comments.
e
4. Please give your full name and address clearly when recognized by the Chair.
Remember, your questions/comments are for the record.
5. Direct your questions/comments to the Chair. The Chair will determine who will answer
your questions.
6. No one will be given the opportunity to speak a second time until everyone has had the
opportunity to speak initially. Please limit your second presentation to new information,
not rebuttal.
7. At the close of the public hearing, the Commission will discuss the proposal and take
appropriate action.
!
f
el
,
.
Regular Meeting of the
Golden Valley Planning Commission
DR.l~FT ONLY
Has Not 8aen "p
~ proved
January 12, 1998
A regular meeting of the Planning Commission was held at the Golden Valley City
Hall, Council Chambers, 7800 Golden Valley Road, Golden Valley, Minnesota, on
Monday, January 12, 1998. The meeting was called to order by Chair Pentel at
7pm.
Those present were Chair Pentel and Commissioners Groger, Johnson, Kapsner,
Martens, McAleese and Prazak. Also present were Mark Grimes, Director of
Planning and Development; Beth Knoblauch, City Planner and Mary Dold,
Recording Secretary.
I. Approval of Minutes - November 24. 1997
MOVED by McAleese, seconded by Johnson and motion carried unanimously to
approve the November 24, 1997 minutes with the following amendments:
.
Page 1, Paragraph 2: Commissioner Prazak was in attendance at the November
24, 1997 meeting.
Page 3, Paragraph 5: The following paragraph was changed by adding the
language which is underlined and deleting the language which is crossed-out.
McAleese said th:tt he had no fundamental problems which v.(()uld impro'ie access
to the area, but he is concerned :tbout the ':lording of the ordinance in that it sounds
:ts though St. Louis Park would have authority to t3X a business in Golden V-alley
along I d91. Grimes commented that the tax can only be imposed by the City
Council, not from the joint task force or the City of St. Louis Park. Grimes said that
he would speak with the City Attorney to clarify the language of the ordinance.
McAleese asked if the new wordina in the ordinance would allow the City of St.
Louis Park to assess properties in Golden Valley and vise versa. Grimes said that
only the Golden Valley City Council may assess Golden Valley property and only St.
Louis Park may assess property in its city as stipulated in Chapter 462 of State
Statute. Grimes said there would have to be a ioint powers aareement in order for
the ioint task force to assess capital improvements. McAleese said that he had no
fundamental problems with assessina property owners for improvements that occur
in their area and improve access to their area. but he is concerned about the
wordina of the ordinance in that it sounds as thouah St. Louis Park would have
authority to tax a business in Golden Valley alona 1-394. Grimes said that an
.
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 2
assessment can only be imposed by the City Council. not from the ioint task force or
the City of 81. Louis Park. Grimes said that he would speak with the City Attorney to
clarify the lanauaae of the ordinance.
e
Page 4, Paragraph2. Change spelling of word "divid" to "divvied"
II. Informal Public Hearina - Tabled Item from the November 24. 1997
Planninq Commission Meetinq -- Amendment to the Zonina Code -
Traffic Manaaement Administrative Fees
Applicant: City of Golden Valley
Purpose: To amend Section 11.56, Subd. 9 of City Code regarding
administrative fees that would allow the city to periodically
assess the parcels subject to the traffic management fee for the
cost involved in implementing capital improvements designed to
reduce traffic congestion, facilitate transit use and implement
traffic management plans in the 1-394 corridor.
Director of Planning and Development, Mark Grimes, reviewed for the commission
the purpose of the amendment which is to add a sentence that would state that the
cities of Golden Valley and S1. Louis Park would be able to assess properties for e
certain capital improvements along the 1-394 corridor. Grimes said that he has
talked with the City's Finance Director on how the fees would be collected and
City's Attorney regarding his opinion concerning the language of the ordinance.
Grimes said that it was the City Attorney's opinion that the language does not
construe any extra authority to the Joint Task Force and that only the respective city
itself could assess its own city. He also said that the Joint Task Force, which is
appointed by both cities, suggested that there be an assessment; Golden Valley
could make a suggestion not to include the language and S1. Louis Park could
include the language. Grimes continued by saying that the language in the
ordinance would put property owners on notice that there is the possibility of
assessments that could be collected for capital improvements along the 1-394
corridor, but can only be done by the respective city councils. Grimes told the
commission that Finance Director Don Taylor said that fees would be placed in a
special account and be administered by the Joint Task Force.
Grimes said that staff is recommending to adopt the amended language in the
ordinance. He would like to see the same language between the two cities.
Commissioner McAleese said that since the amendment doesn't giye, to the city or
task force, any additional powers and there is a certain element of notice involved
(a notice of general power), so it doesn't make any sense to clutter up the wording _
by adding this language. He also questioned why the City of 81. Louis Park is so .,
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 3
.
interested in adding this language concerning fees. Grimes said that the Joint Task
Force came up with the language and St. Louis Park was more enthused. Grimes
said that the attorneys for both cities have said that this amendment would put on
record that there is the possibility of some day doing capital improvements where
money may have to be collected through assessments of properties along 1-394.
This would required developers to put in their leases that there is an ordinance
regarding assessment fees; this would let tenants know that they could be subject to
a traffic management plan.
Grimes told the commission that the original language proposed from St. Louis Park
was much stronger than what the commission is now looking at, and is a
compromise of what the law is now. McAleese again cpmmented that if St. Louis
Park wanted stronger language, it must suggest that they must want something
more. Grimes told McAleese that St. Louis Park can only proceed through its City
Council.
Kapsner commented that he sees a need for the amended ordinance in that real
estate taxes exist but the proposed tax would be for a building along 1-394,
whereas, a similar building on Hwy. 55 would not have to pay this proposed tax, so
that could open the City to upset business owners or lawsuits.
. McAleese said that he believes that business owners will be upset whether the
amended language is in the ordinance or not. What we are talking about are capital
improvements which businesses would be taxed on anyway, whether or not there is
a joint task force covering this. If Golden Valley puts in a stop light, the chances are
that the adjacent businesses will pay for the stop light. Kapsner said that this may
go beyond that in that it could be for bus shelters or something that anywhere else
in the City it would not be experienced.
Grimes explained to the commission that the City had assessed property owners for
a signal that was put in at Market and Louisiana. Property owners as far away as
Xenia were taxed because it was believed that businesses in the general area
would benefit from it.
McAleese asked who would be put on notice for this assessment. He said the
tenants who are moving into the businesses are not going to receive a notice.
Grimes said that tenants would receive a paragraph from the ordinance that says
that potentially they could be subject to a traffic management plan. McAleese talked
about the tenants who move in not getting specific notice of being taxed. He
suggested that maybe the ordinance needs to be amended further so that tenants
who receive this small paragraph in their lease are aware of the possibility of
additional taxes.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 4
Grimes commented that a real estate attorney for MEPC was at the meeting and
had concerns about the language, but after it was "watered down", he found it to be
acceptable to his client. McAleese stated that the language doesn't add or subtract
any powers, so how can a developer be upset or potentially upset by the language.
Martens commented that the developer could read the language and ask if the City
had special powers. Martens said that he would be satisfied if there were a
preamble to that sentence which said "subject to the specific approval of the City
Council on any particular assessment."
.
McAleese argued that since the City already has the power to tax, the sentence
could be taken out and there would be no confusion for anyone.
Groger said that he had concerns and is not sure there is a need for this language,
but after listening to staff believes that the wording is harmless.
Pentel said that she thinks the amendment is a good thing for the two cities and it
clarifies the cooperation for capital improvements along the 1-394 corridor.
Chair Pentel opened the informal public hearing; seeing and hearing no one, Chair
Pentel closed the informal public hearing.
MOVED by Groger, seconded by Prazak and motion carried by a vote of 6-1 to e
recommend to the City Council approval of the amendment to Section 11.56, Subd.
9 (Traffic Management Administrative Fees).
III. Reports on meetinQs of the Housina and Redevelopment Authority. City
Council and Board of Zonina Appeals
Chair Pentel talked about the HRA meeting she attended whereby it was approved
that the City should proceed with the extension of Area B tax increment district.
Grimes said that Representative Leppik has submitted this request to the legislature
and she will inform staff when it will go before a committee.
McAleese asked if there were issues regarding the school districts. Grimes talked
about the Hopkins school district being of the formula for receiving money.
Knoblauch reminded the commission that the extension of the district was only for
Area B in the Valley Square Redevelopment District.
Groger briefed the commission on what took place at the December 16, 1997 Board
of Zoning Appeals meeting.
e
Minutes of the Golden Valley Planning Commission
January 12, 1998
Page 5
.
IV. Other Business
Plan.
A. Continued Workshop Session Technical Background for the Land Use
Grimes asked Pentel when an update would be ready for the Land Use Plan.
Pentel said the small group met before the holidays and generally looked through it.
McAleese asked when the groups comments are due. Grimes said the middle of
February.
V. Adioumment
The Chair adjourn the meeting at 7:50pm.
Emilie Johnson, Secretary
e
e
.
MEMORANDUM
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
January 22, 1998
Golden Valley Planning Commission
Mark W. Grimes
Director of Planning and Development
Preliminary Design Plan for Amendment No. 1 to Menard Addition
PUD No. 75, 6800 Wayzata Blvd., Menard, Inc., Applicant
RE:
.
Menards has requested an amendment to PUD No. 75 that reduces and alters
the expansion originally approved by the City Council on July 15, 1997. Since
that time, the additions and changes outlined in the PUD permit have not been
started. The amendment proposed by Menards actually reduces the square
footage of new addition space to the building. The existing PUD permit allows
for Menards to add 26,687 sq.ft. of space. The proposed amendment reduces
the addition space to 23,526 sq.ft.
When comparing the proposed site plan with the site plan approved as part of
the PUD permit, there was an error in the total square footage of the building as
shown on the site plan dated 6/18/97 which is part of the PU D permit. The plan
indicates that there is a total of 123,352 sq.ft. of building area after the additions
are completed. Staff has found that number to be in error. The actual size of
the building as approved by the PUD permit is 131,352 sq.ft. For some reason,
Menards did not count the 8,000 sq.ft. in the MGM liquor store in the total size
calculation. The proposed site plan does include the MGM store. With the
reduction of the addition size by approximately 3,100 sq.ft. and the addition of
8,000 sq.ft. from the MGM store, the total size of the proposed building with
additions is now 128,191 sq.ft. or 2.1 % larger than the plan that was approved
in July, 1997.
The proposed amendment makes two significant changes. First, there will be
no addition on the northeast comer of the building. The existing PUD plan
indicates that a 10,600 sq.ft. addition would be constructed on what is
considered the rear of the building. The rear of the building will remain as is
with the exception of added parking that was approved as part of the original
PUD.
Second, the addition on the southwest comer of the building has been
increased from 16,087 sq.ft. to 23,526 sq.ft. The additional 7,439 sq.ft. of
space will extend into what is now the side setback next to Market Street. The
.
.
addition being proposed is to be constructed to within 20 feet of Market Street.
Code requires that all buildings and parking areas be setback 35 feet from a
street right-of-way. The existing plan shows that the driveway and parking area
is setback 20 feet from the Market Street right-of-way line. In order to construct
in this area, the access from the Menards parking lot from Market Street is being
eliminated. Access to Menards will be from Wayzata Blvd. and Hampshire
Avenue. Staff believes that eliminating the access to Market Street is positive.
Many consider this a dangerous driveway location due to the curve. The
Planning Commission also discussed with Menards the possibility of eliminating
this access point when the original PUD was approved last summer. The
proposed addition is far enough away from the street so that it would not cause
a sight line hazard to those driving along Market Street and Wayzata Blvd.
This new space at the southwest comer of the building would be primarily used
for retail display.
Landscaping of the site will remain essentially the same as shown on the plan
that was approved in July, 1997. The Plan does indicate that a new black chain
link fence will replace the existing fence at the southeast comer of the site. This
is a big improvement over the existing fence.
The revised plan indicates 443 parking spaces, an increase of 9 spaces from
the July, 1997 plan. Even though the actual square footage of the site has
increased from 123,000 sq.ft. to 128,000 sq.ft. (about 2%), staff does not
believe that this is a significant change. Parking should be adequate with the
443 spaces shown on the revised site plan. Staff will recommend that an
amended PUD permit keep the stipulation that if there is not adequate customer
parking in the south (front) lot, Menards will review its parking arrangements by
changing employee parking or moving some employee parking off-site.
Attached is a copy of the PUD permit for PUD No. 75. If the Planning
Commission and City Council approve the proposed amendment, staff will
recommend that this permit remain the same except that the revised site and
building plans be made a part of the PUD permit. (The only exception is that
the Subdivision section of the Permit may be changed or eliminated because
the new plat of PUD No. 75 has be filed.)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends approval of the amended PUD to allow Menards to increase
the size of the addition on the southwest comer of the building from 16,087
sq.ft. to 23,526 sq.ft. and to eliminate the addition on the northwest comer of
the building that was proposed to be 10,600 sq.ft. The attached site plan dated
Nov. 15,1997 would become the approved site plan. The conditions found in
the existing PUD permit would remain with the exception of the Subdivision
section and substituting a revised site plan, building elevation plans and
landscape plan.
.
.
Attachments: Location Map
Revised Plans
P.U.D. No. 75 Permit
2
I
I
R'
I ; I
, .,
1<( .,,/
z ,
1<( t-I ,,75
1- I
I~ I
=>",
19 ~,; I
I .. I . J~' ~~. '0' .
4" ." ... 0': " ,"_1~.:- -',,:-, --
I;"U I"'~'_---_.-" ,
. .' - _,.----,,,, .,U \ '
~ - _. ,t..:'4~';";\ ,.J"'" \ '
. '~d Bear58~'4~~HL~---'-
----\"i:,.;.,T"" .~t.'" .
l. {}, "00' '^...~\ \
. 'r" 1
'Ii ~I ;,,;,
'Z'- Z:J
I"" .
'.."w,t,I)'
~
J:
...
"
W
N
~
~ol
i'"
." .
IE,
f
r",
..
.;.~ I~.~'--
Q
,-,!!"
,,"~ ....
" 0 ~ -;
~I (f) '., .:,
:.,,~
'" 'ra
~Ift. ~ (I
", 10 t:
. .
"
I" ()?/ 0
'-0 l\I \D
I ~J ~"~
>(. I
I .
w
I~
I
~
-...:;.
-
:- ~ COLONIAL
"S,ll
ROAD ~
....I~
~.
~~
~~
, ,<::I
"
~
.
T:Z~
"
"'\'
,;'
;;;'
G~---~ ,
~~ -~ -- -~~ = ;)--
~
~
:'I
"
:-
"'I~
;; .
...
"
;I~
Ii...
~
...
"'9 a
<:::>,.., ~
""0
~
2
"I
'"
'"
..,.
"l'
1(~1"l'f '1(1"4"
748. '17
s,~e
se~
~ v'\o~o
.~~VE,
N
S8'"~'J':JI'F
~
. ,.:....,.;..
:1:: ;~ ~
, .~- :.
1 . J, , N.
5'1. :.:.
<:>
...
----- ---
.." '48," '.'
(: .'tell'2/'S'"
- - - - jJ~"',j - --
..a' WE
. z-,.,1:' -
.
I
:'c :
ia
S"
- -, p
,
1
<>
IS
-2
~ '"
~ .::{
~
- -- -130
:.\
....
"
..
..
..
...
...
..
rJ
""
'"
.....1 ,"
..... _0
... .......
...-.JI
"" '
'"
,
'0'
~.i
~,
-- r-' '
-1"
.. - .3,-':
r-J
",
PART
LMJ:,
ot.- R[<;I~Tf.RED I
SURVEY NOti~e
.~
'.
'.!
~
STREET
I
-<ltJ()
N
...
Q
~
'-<:
"
." !')
:-., ~,
'<> ....
'"
Hf "/
!SQ
.
.
Q
SBi4.~'ls'E .,
t'''3~ ,
_ 1".;4- I \00),05
.
Zoo
"" :::v~. ?'Gel
o -
ci
r; 2.
,~
"'I~
'" .
':)I~
""-
,.., r'
.
.
~
6980
6950
t --L;';~T - - -..--=
4.1~'4,' : .),', 1'7.31'
o.,'Jo' : I..S'.~o,o
T, ~ !4O.H I Lc! 11'1.1&
Els' 1'0' ~~~
,
/,
Menard Addition P.U.D. No. 75
City Council Approval: July 15. 1997
. City of Golden Valley, Minnesota
Use Permit
for
Planned Unit Development
Project Name: Menard Addition, P.U.D. No. 75
Location: 6800 Wayzata Blvd, Golden Valley, Minnesota
Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, Block 2, Golden Plaza 1st Addition, according to
the recorded plat thereof, Hennepin County, Minnesota
Applicant: Menard, Inc.
Address: 4777 Menard, Inc., Eau Claire, WI 54703
Owner: Menard, Inc.
Address: 4777 Menard, Inc., Eau Claire, WI 54703
. Zoning District:
Permitt~d Uses:
Industrial
Lumber yard and building supply store with 8,000 sq.ft. as a
MGM Liquor Store until year 2001.
Components:
A. Land Use Component:
1. The site plan prepared by Menard, Inc. and dated 6/18/97 shall become a part of the PUD
approval. The building elevation plans dated 1/14/97 and merchandise plan dated
10/2/92 both prepared by Menard, Inc. shall also become a part of the approval. These
plans shall be kept in the official City files on P.U.D. No. 75 and these site and building
plans shall be noted by City staff as the plans submitted as part of the General Plan
approval.
.
2. The existing building and the additions to the building shall only be used by Menard, Inc.
for use as a lumber yard and building supply store. The MGM Liquor store in the
southeast comer of the Menard building and occupying 8,000 sq.ft. may remain until
December 31, 2001. If MGM chooses to leave this space before December 31, 2001,
this space may only be occupied by Menard, Inc. for a lumber yard or building supply
store.
.
. B.
.
Menard Addition, P.U.D. No. 75
Page Two
3. Landscaping shall be completed as shown on the attached landscape plan prepared by
Menard, Inc. and dated 10/18/96. This plan shall be submitted to the Building Board of
Review for review and approval. Improvements and enhancements to this landscape
plan may be made by the Building Board of Review. The final landscape plan approved
by the Building Board of Review shall become a part of the General Plan approval. The
screening structure shown on the landscape plan along portions of the north and west
property lines shall be constructed at the same time as the additions to the building. The .
Building Board of Review may require that upgrades be made to the existing fencing
along Hampshire and frontage road.
4. The building addition shall be constructed as per the site plan and building elevations that
are attached.
5. Any new, outside lighting for the parking or storage areas shall be approved by the Chief
of Fire and Inspections. The Chief shall have the right to modify any lighting.
6. All signage on the site must meet the requirements of the City's sign code.
7. Menard may sell Christmas trees in the parking lot as long as no more than 20 spaces
are used for the sales lot.
Circulation Component:
1. Access drives, parking and walkways shall be constructed as per the site plan.
2. If the Chief of Fire and Inspections determines that parking is not adequate for
customers in the front (south) parking lot, Menard will be required to review its parking
arrangement by changing employee parking areas or moving some employee parking
off-site.
C. Subdivision
1. The final platofthe Menard Addition, P.U.D. No. 75 shall be filed by the applicant with
Hennepin County prior to the issuance of any building permits related to this P.U.D.
Permit. The applicant shall give the City proof of such filing.
2. The plat name shall include "P.U.D. No. 75".
3. The final plat shall be filed within six (6) months after the date of the Council action
giving final approval to the P.U.D. Permit or the P.U.D. Permit shall become void.
.
.
.
Menard Addition, P.U.D. No. 75
Page Three
D.
Services and Facilities
1.
The drainage plan prepared by Menard dated 10/18/96 shall become a part of the this
P.U.D. Permit. any new or future connections to the City's storm sewer system shall
be done only with the approval of the City Engineer.
2. Any new sewer and water service connections shall conform to the City's utility
standards.
3. The outside speaker system used to notify employees shall be eliminat~d no later than
August 1, 1997.
It is hereby understood and agreed that this Use Permit is a part of the City Council approval
granted on July 15,1997. Any changes to the P.U.D. Permit for Menard Addition, P.U.D. No.
75 shall require an amendment.
Witness:
MENARD, INC.
By:
Title:
Date:
CITY OF GOLDEN VALLEY
Witness:
By:
Mary E. Anderson, Mayor
Date:
Witness:
By:
William S. Joynes, City Manager
Date:
Warning: This permit does not exempt you from all other City Code provisions,
regulations and ordinances.
.
.
~ )
~
:E
:E
of :E :E ""IH "-
I :E :E
I ~u ~~
w ~
::>
~ .
<( .. ,,'
-' ~ 0
w
'"
::> :1
:5 ~I
II D
I
I I
'" I
-,
I ~
(
I I~
~\ I
EXlSTlNG I I~~ I >8'-0"
PROTOTYPE I
WAREHOUSE fi1 \1 ~~
I ~I
I
I
I
I
I
I
'--
>8'
S. '14' KlGH SCREENINC
_ClURE
I
I
L~-----
EiOSiiNO-fENcE-siiEi.i'E'R --- --
----------- ~
HAMPSHIRE A\oENUE
_______..!I.!::!Z-_'.I'Zllil:!....-__
~
/
~
rrmrn IIIIII11
~\\\\~\\\~
~~\\~~\~
~~
w
~
J!E
z
'"
I-
is
e:
4J4f.';ft ~rAC[S
~\~\~\~
~
~w~
~
MARKET ST.
.......
o;;n
.",......ShILDI'lIbIfIlEl'JllTIGfT
..."""'-
~INC.
.
'"
'"
...
.
.~.
.
----.....asPllCl'l:Jtn'u.:
0.. Ila:AlP~UCIft'PO$fl.OColtllll
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN.
SITE PLAN
SCI.l.L tADOlfIGJWIE
,...40'-0' CCI.DSIlE
0llAMt8'r' 9lEUMO.
....
""6/'0/01 $-1
.
...............
1IWE1IJtCFtllI!El'\.AlmIGta.l.lttall:
,......~AJIlloPlAmJlCl..,..lI't6..
TIEQ t11t1M:......-:aSlLl'UImII
"'...--
=.,10 IE Wbf'D 1'IlII'" lD nISf
fIlID1OJa\/I:,ollllo.l,.PGnRIIlttIl
IIRMl nu-suo. If ..-a. K m UllIU
MIIlQ UU*: ITIII:t AU. 'lIlIES 0 DltlQ.
aJ..cttII$lIllClDIIJCtO......
.........
OXl'llM:1IRD~nRlILLlIP'lIIbtl
.. ...... .......
EXISTING LANDSCAPE LEGEND
SYMBDI.. QlJAHTtTY !DTANltAL NAME
0It) 8 CRJMSDrfKD<<lMAPU:
I) t3 GRD:N ASH
. 9 HmG:Y UJCUS
IJ en EXISTING CDI.JJR:ADl] Bl.JJE SPRUCE
o I 0lINESE ELM
o 61 ClJMMIJN PURPU: Ul..AC
II..... _ _I sa:m:DDRSUlllltD
NEV LANDSCAPE LEGEND
~ -~-
as CEI..DRADtI BJJ[ SPRUCE
~1 CIJMIGi PURPLE UL.AC
2.a BROIlI\l tRlAlEO
iLJiiS~
:b:8 GIRlS AnACHED
10 PAUfi RACICIXG
w, LAO En.rs
CD SCREENING STRUCTURE
sc.w:: 1/4".1'-0"
.
~ )
HAMPSHIRE A IlENUE
'"
~
<
-'
111
::;)
:s
GD ~~~~~APE PLANTER DETAIL
.
1IIIIIITlln1m
--
~~\\\\\\\ 1
~\\\\\\\~~
~j
I ~~~~~~\~ ~ ~
~
...
>-
'"
.., , ~
.... I
~~~I 'i'
~
~
rl~
~Wj
~
MARKET ST.
~INC.
P\.MIQIGNlI1Ir\IELlI'lIOItto'MtllEJ(J
""""""'-
""""'"
"""""'
~
.~.
----IOCAIESCOWCFDm'~
O.rIltlC4_~I.DftP05JLOCAnQl
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN.
LANDSCAPING PLAN
9CAl.( ~_JWC
'....40'-0.. ca.rt.ND2
rw.Wtfsr 9GfNO.
....
....,,/10/96 L-1
.
.
~ )
HAMPSHIRE A IlENUE
- - - ~~-.-=-.:~ ~-~~e
_______-'l!:1t.-_.~__
~ @ @ @ @ @
/
'"
::>
~
..
-'
~
~
,\
..
~
:i
II
I
L
~
.~:E
"":E :E
t :E :E
~~ ~~
· ~ o'
MENARD5 .
87.272 SQ. n.
EXISTING
123,352 SQ. FT~
PROPOSED TOTAl,
~
:+'
hi
~
.-
,..
If D
-,
I ~"
/
I .,Ii
I
I
EXISllNG I , IIll>t >1<4
PROTO'NPE I il
WAREHOUSE /II II tl
I
I
,
I
,
I
I
'"
~
I!:
z
'"
~
~~\~\\\1
~~~~~~~~~
l2ff~\
~ '7~t. ~0t3ACES
~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~
~~
\
~~~
MARKET 5T.
.
~
~
~
a1
~
:;:
~
~
.~.
, .,. .
PRO.(Cflllll
0... NDICIlUDzRIIOtD1JPO$l'I.OCillIQl
. ~1Q~MMtllUl.OCIUCIM
__ftDICA'lDOlUll'tlCMrI*1IRfI.OW
IIoIDIARIIl INC.
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN.
DRAINAGE PLAN
""""'"
;o.ro;;z
rLHdllIG"'l1E\If1.O"lIDf~
...~-
.... ""
"
sc.ru: ICoIll 0.0 IWIE
1-"CO'-O. GO..OAD2
DRUIl8Y fiHU1'JCO.
....
lMtI: to/ta/il
.
-
-
ill ~ I -'~.,.,., ~
~ II_.L' II_.~
~I~"r_l
.=-=-- II !:l::1<:::!: 13 ~ r----.-' ~ _
________ I ~~., I
I I Mlfllllll,'[ I [ ~ I '-__,-_.J
l ,-------, r-----' r-----.,
I ~l I II EH:::mJ L__"::_J L_~_~_J L_~~_J
I"III~III~
11~'1\.. ~
1"'l"'1""1'l1:l1.'T"'I'"'fl BiiBiIJ
11J~Io..II~
1''P''_''1''lI~
111'lII'_III~
I I ....'1JIiIl.1 II ~
.
~----~ ~ ------~ ~-----, I
~- ---~- -~-~
t--;,;;-~ t--- ";'--1J ~--;;;.--, I
---- --- --- ----~
E!!IIEI:I
~
~
o I~"'I
'--I
6\mlIJ
ElBIIE3
ill ill
~EJ
CJ 8333J
.
I
.......
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
.::2 ...:ri __.a __oR
.
.
m:H
a'l~
!
la iii
s i
,. a ~
I ~ 'I.
i~ I ~a
~
~
~
~
~ ~
C:t:l !II
~ ~
~ ~
~ 15
::>!
~ ~
~ ~
fill ~ 0-
j J ~
11311 ~~ i!
: : ~ i
I I
I I
:111: ~!~
1: IOU
L_J I i
~~
.....:
lL..
a
(/)
o
o
N
I"')
N
.......
.
.
.
!>I"'N LEe.END
9>1GHJt HiSI6HT t.l!NI5t1H tQ. "OOT~
lot!:NMPS 0'..0' U..t;I' 3a
wa..c:.ot.lIS fO_ r~6' ,fO".tS' eo
~ :t.fS' ~...' 1&.'1
rAM' :t..r:f' r;..~ I).,J
t..\UlIa ~..tS' "f"D" "..,
URET :t..tf' .,.... Id 146
~ :i..a' D'-fJ' ,.;1.0
t::l..I!X.11ttGAI. :i..f1' ~..<t 1'\&
~ :i-a' 'i..." IU
Hl'lIQ:JWME :/..0' '1'..1)" 1'\1
'fOTAL $Q. FOOfA6t .. !O1.4 SQ. P1.
EXISTING FRONT ELEVATION
SCAU:. 1116'-1'-0'
SCAlE. 1116'.1'-1)'
NE'W 'WEST ELEVATION
EXISTING 'WEST ELEVATION
SCALE. lIJ6'.r-oo
NE'W REAI$_ELEV A T ION
SCALE< Vl6""I'-tr
EXISTING REAR ELEVATION
SCALE,1116'-I'-o"
EAST ELEVATION
SCAl.E.1/16'''I'-0''
MlENARD, INC.
MENARDS
GOLDEN VALLEY, MN.
PlAHIlIlO AN) llL"4UADT ctPMnlOCl
EAUCUoflt.~SlN
StUT mu:[XlSTlHG .. HEY IIlJtllllMG tt.[VATlIJNS
~""...'"'"
V16'.J'-O" tl(D.OVl.1
ORA" tIT UGTMO.
.....
EXISTING
~
..~
StALE.V16'.I'-Q'