Loading...
CR 05-025 SuperValu - Site Plan Review OIlY OF March 10, 2005 m HOPKINS Council Report 05-25 SITE PLAN REVIEW - SUPERV ALU Proposed Action, Staffrecommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 05-18. approving a site plan to construct an addition to the building at 300 Second Avenue South. At the Zoning and Planning meeting Mr. Aamess moved and Mr. Paul seconded a motion to adopt Resolution RZ05-2, recommending approval of a site plan to construct an addition to the building at 300 Second Avenue South. The motion was approved on a 5-1 vote. Mr. Kjos voted nay, Overview. Supervalu is proposing to construct a 120,000-square-foot addition to the existing building at 300 Second Avenue South. The proposed addition will be located on the south side of the existing building. SuperValu is proposing to remove the existing fence, and construct a new fence that would meet the requirements of the Fire Marshal if the neighborhood wants the fence replaced. When the existing building was constructed, a height variance was granted. If the building addition is to match the existing building, a height variance will have to be granted. There will be no dock doors, truck traffic, yard noise, tractor/trailer fumes/noise on the south side of the new addition. The only lighting on the south side will be lighting above the fire doors. Supervalu will be bringing additional plans showing landscaping and berming on the south side. Primary Issues to Consider. · What is the zoning ofthe property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? · What are the specifics of the redevelopment? . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? . Can the item be continued? Supportinl! Documents. . Analysis of issues . Resolution 05-18 . Site Plans Nanc . Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Y/N Source: CR05-25 Page 2 Primary Issues to Consider. · What is the zoning of the property, and how has the Comprehensive Plan designated the subject site? The zoning of the property is 1-2, General Industrial. The Comprehensive Plan has designated this site as Industrial. The proposed development complies with both documents. · What are the preliminary specifics of the redevelopment? Building The proposed 120,000-square-foot addition will be added to the south side of the existing building. The exterior will match the existing building. Parking At the submittal for site plan review, the applicant will have to demonstrate that there is adequate parking for the site. The addition will require 60 new parking spaces. The total site is required to have 546 parking spaces with the proposed addition. The site will have 562 parking spaces, Landscaping The addition will require 60 new plantings for the site in addition to the plantings that will have to be replaced. The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan at this time. The applicant is having a neighborhood meeting on February 16th. After input from the neighborhood a landscape plan will be completed. This plan will be available at the Zoning and Planning meeting. Exterior The exterior will be the same as the existing building, pre-cast concrete panels. The applicant has stated that they will work with the neighborhood with paint to break up the appearance of the wall. Access Access to the site will not change. The existing access to the site is from Fifth Avenue. Setbacks The building is required to have a 40-foot setback. The plan indicates more than a 40-foot setback. CR05-25 Page 3 Engineering/Public Works Storm Drainage The drainage cales show a decrease in runoff from the existing to proposed condition. This is due to 2 factors. I) They are an additional 0.65 acres unaccounted for in their computations. 2) The time of concentration is longer for the proposed condition, which has the effect of reducing the rainfall intensity for the calculations. I recommend having the cales resubmitted for review clarifying and correcting these issues. As a general comment, there are storm sewers crossing each other with some going to the pond and others straight to the storm sewer system. It may make sense to try and limit the crossovers by redirecting some of the roof drainage from the one outlet to the other while maintaining the same total discharge for each. Water System Should the internal loop 12" water main be connected to the public line on Fifth Street? It would likely improve flows for the area in general. Sanitary Sewer No comments. Miscellaneous Light pollution from the door lights can be minimized by using directed door lights and using coatings on the doors that have low reflectivity. It looks like there is an opportunity for additional plantings on the south edge of Buffer Park without dramatically impacting the play area. Grading looked fine, Fire Marshal The Firs Marshal has reviewed the plans. He has found them acceptable, The fence either has to be removed or doors constructed in the fence. The reason for this is the fire department needs access to the doors on the south side of the building. Height The Zoning Ordinance stipulates that the maximum height for an industrial building abutting a residential zoning is 35 feet. The proposed addition's height varies from 43' 8" to 47' 8". A variance will have to be granted for this height. CR05-25 Page 4 Watershed District The Watershed District will have to approve this addition. Surrounding Uses The site is surrounded by residential on the south, Highway 169 to the east, SuperValu perishables building to the west and industrial uses to the north. . What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting? Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed addition. Bob King, representing Supervalu, appeared before the Commission. Mr. King reviewed the landscape plan with the Commission. Mr. King stated that the building is five years old and they need to increase capacity. Supervalu is open to working with the neighborhood regarding screening and the color ofthe building. Mr. King was asked if other sides of the building were considered for the addition. Mr. King stated that they had looked at putting the addition on other sides of the building, but the south side worked best. It was noted that the height of the building along Fifth Street would be 43' 8", The public hearing was opened at 7:02 p.m. The following residents appeared before the Commission and spoke in opposition to the height variance: . Ordell Olsen, 625 Fifth Avenue South . Sandra Lien, 629 Fifth Avenue South . John Malecha, 509 Sixth Avenue South . Pam Tanaka, 606 East Park Valley Drive . Roger Petersen, 513 Fifth Avenue South . Kathy Undestad, 408 Seventh Street South There was a medical emergency at this time. The Supervalu items will be continued to a special meeting on March 8th at 6:30 p.m. March 8th Ms. Anderson reviewed the proposed addition to Supervalu. Bob King representing Supervalu appeared before the Commission. Mr. King reviewed what has taken place and the site plan. Mr. King reviewed the following: . Elevation difference between 35' and 45' addition . Supervalu is willing to reconstruct the fence . Larger trees . Painting of the addition . Additions to the north, west and east . Plantings in Buffer park CR05-25 Page 5 The public hearing was opened at 7:30 p.m. The following residents appeared before the Commission and spoke in opposition to the height variance: . Kathy Understad 408 Seventh Street South . Bob Mader 308 Seventh Street South . Robert Buys 605 West Park Valley Drive . J ames Vescera 60 I West Park Valley Drive . Ruby Olsen 625 Fifth Avenue Avenue South . Steve Olsen 215 lnterlachen Road . Michael Reinitz 533 Fifth Avenue South . Mark Panger 600 Fifth Avenue South . Roger Peterson 513 Fifth Avenue South . Eliza Van Luyk 618 East Park Valley Drive . Pam Tanaka 606 East Park Valley Drive . Craig Hinrichs 621 East Park Valley Drive . Helen Lovingfoss 538 East Park Valley Drive Sandy Lien read letters from the following residents: . Lucy Lund 614 West Park Valley Drive . Steven Berquist 509 East Park Valley Drive . Can the item be continued? Because of the 60-day rule the item can be continued only if the applicant agrees to a continuance. Alternatives. 1. Approve the site plan to construct an addition to the building at 300 Second Avenue South. By approving the site plan review to construct an addition, the applicant will be able to construct the addition within the ordinance requirements. 2. Deny the site plan to construct an addition to the building at 300 Second Avenue South. By denying the addition, the applicant will not be able to construct the addition as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative, findings will have to be identified that support this alternative. 3, Continue for further information. If the City Council indicates that further information is needed, the item should be continued. This alternative is an option if the applicant agrees. CITY OF HOPKINS Hennepin County, Minnesota RESOLUTION NO: 05-18 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION WHEREAS, an application for Site Plan Review SPR05-1 has been made by Supervalu; WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows: 1. That an application for a site plan review was made by Supervalu on January 31, 2005; 2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed and published notice, held a public hearing on the application and reviewed such application on February 22, and March 8, 2005: all persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; 3. That the written comments and analysis of City staff were considered; and 4. A legal description of the subject property is as follows: Lot I, Block I, Supervalu Addition NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the application for Site Plan Review SPR05-1 hereby approved based on the following Findings of Fact: 1. That the proposed development meets the requirements for site plan approval. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Site Plan Review SPR05-1 is hereby approved based on the following conditions: I. That the Watershed District approves the development. 2. That the final drainage, grading and utility plans are approved. Adopted this 15th day of March 2005. ATTEST: Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor Terry Obermaier, City Clerk