CR 05-026 Height Variance for SuperValu
CiTY OF
e
March 10, 2005
i-tOPKINS
Council Report 05-26
VARIANCE - HEIGHT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 05-19. approving a
height variance for the addition to Supervalu.
At the Zoning and Planning meeting, Mr. Aarness moved and Mr. Paul seconded the
motion to adopt Resolution RZOS-3, recommending denial of a height variance for the
addition to Supervalu. The motion was approved unanimously.
Overview.
Supervalu is proposing to construct a l20,000-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. There would be no dock doors or truck traffic
on the south side. 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.
The industrial district maximum height for a building that abuts a residential district is
35 feet. The existing building was granted a height variance.
Primary Issues to Consider,
· What does the ordinance require?
· What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
· What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
· What was the discussion at the Zoning and Planning meeting?
· Can the item be continued?
Supportinl!: Documents.
· Analysis ofIssues
. Site Plans
· Resolution 05-19
Gfi
Nancy . Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted:
Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
YIN
Source:
CR05-26
Page 2
Primarv Issues to Consider,
. What does the ordinance require?
The height for an industrial building abutting a residential zoning district is 35 feet.
. What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
The applicant is requesting a height variance of 12.5 feet.
· What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
The Zoning Ordinance states the following: a variance is a modification or variation
from the provisions of this code granted by the board and applied to a specific parcel of
property because of undue hardship due to circumstances peculiar and unique to such
parcel. The Zoning Ordinance also states the following: that the Commission must find
that the literal enforcement of the provision of the Zoning Ordinance would cause an
undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the individual property under
consideration and that the granting of a variance to the extent necessary to compensate
for said hardship is in keeping with the intent of this code.
In this case, the applicant has an undue hardship that is unique to the property. The new
addition will match the existing building if the new addition does not receive a variance
there will not be enough interior clearance for material handling and storage equipment
to utilize the building.
· 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 of the 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
CR05-26
Page 3
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
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
· James Vescera 601 West Park Valley Drive
· Ruby Olsen 625 Fifth Avenue Avenue South
. Steve Olsen 215 Interlachen 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.
CR05-26
Page 4
Alternatives.
1. Approve the variance, By approving the variance, the applicant will be able to
construct the addition with a height of 47.5 feet.
2. Deny the variance. By denying the variance, the applicant will not be able to
construct the addition as proposed. If the City Council considers this alternative,
findings of fact will have to be stated that support this recommendation.
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
ifthe applicant agrees.
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: 05-19
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF F ACT AND
APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT
WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN05-1 has been made by Supervalu; and
WHEREAS, the procedural history of the application is as follows:
1. That an application for Variance VN05-1 was made by Supervalu on January 28,
2005;
2. That the Hopkins Zoning and Planning Commission, pursuant to mailed notice,
held a meeting 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 the City staff were considered;
4. The Hopkins City Council considered the application for the variance on March
15,2005;
and
5. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lot I, Block 1, Supervalu Addition
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Variance VN05-1 for a
variance of 12.5 feet from the maximum building height of 35 feet is hereby approved based on
the following Findings of Fact:
1. The height of the applicant's existing building located on the subject property
is 47.5 feet. The applicant has demonstrated that the proposed building
addition requires a continuation of the existing building's 47.5 foot height to
achieve the interior clearance heights necessary to install and operate the
material handling systems and equipment to be installed by the applicant on
the interior of the proposed addition. Continuation of the pre-existing use of
the subject property by applicant is a reasonable use of such property.
2. That the subject property has a natural elevation that rises over 37 feet from
the west to the east, limiting the location of the existing building and the
proposed addition on the site.
3. That a street right-of-way and public park are located south of the subject
property separating the proposed addition from the adjacent residential area
located south of the park. The presence of the street right-of-way and park
reduces the negative effect of the proposed addition on the residential
neighborhood located to the south,
4. The approved site plan and landscaping plan for the proposed addition include
the planting of larger trees and trees of different varieties, new landscaping
and a fence, all of which will reduce the negative effect of the proposed
R05-19
Page 2
addition on the residential neighborhood located to the south.
5. When the existing warehouse building was constructed on the site by
applicant, applicant was required to design the building with the truck access
and loading and unloading facilities located on the north side of the building.
While an expansion of the building to the north would not be subject to the 35
foot maximum height limitation, it is not feasible to expand the building to the
north because it was designed and built with the truck access, loading and
unloading on its north side. There is no location on the site other than the
north side ofthe existing facility at which truck access is permitted.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Variance
VN05-1 is hereby approved based on the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan is approved.
Adopted this 15th day of March 2005.
ATTEST:
Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor
Terry Obermaier, City Clerk
SUPERV ALU INC
Minneapolis Distribution Center
300 Second Avenue South '
Positive and Negative Impacts
Alternative Building Addition Locations
Page One
150' southward addition * 120,000 Sq-ft. * 43'-8" above qrade
Negatives:
. Large visual impact of building wall from the south.
. Requires removal of sound wall, if replaced requires doors for fire dept. access,
o Requires height variance,
Positives:
. Provides height and location needed to support warehouse operations,
. Relocated traffic, noise, truck emissions from 53 dock doors to \he north side of site,
. Relocate trash compactors to mid building on the west.
. Removes all "high pole" area lighting south of the building
. Increases "green space" from 10 feet on the west to 52 feet in depth on the east.
. Provides space to plant 53 large 16-18 foot high trees and 200 dogwood plantings and the opportunity
to relocate existing smaller trees to Buffer Park and Trail System,
. Building setback of 52 foot exceeds zoning by 12 feet.
. Removes the visual impact of dock door signs and canopy. provides a horizontally three shade paint
design,
150' northward addition * 120,000 Sq-ft. * 47'-6" above qrade
Negatives:
. Reiocates all of the buildings traffic, 11oise, truck emissions to the south side of site.
o Displaces SV tractor parking and staging to the south side of the site.
OR
Displaces inbound tractor/trailer off-street staging area,
. Blocks existing inbound tractor/trailer access to the site from 3" St.
Requires relocatio11 of entrance to the west, tractorltrailer queuing lane not available with inbound traffic
backing up on 5th Ave, '
o Additional "green space" not available for landscaping,
Positives:
. Visual appearance of south elevation remains the same.
75' northward addition & 75' southward addition
Negatives:
. Cost prohibitive:
o Requires reconstructing 63 additional docks
o Requires reconstructing two operation offices
. Traffic, noise, truck emissions remain on south side due to insufficient yard space on north side,
. Requires some docks to remain on south elevation to support operations,
. Additional "green space" not available for landscaping,
Positives:
. Less visual impact of a 150 foot southward expansion,
SUPERVALUINC
Minneapolis Distribution Center
300 Second Avenue South
Positive and Negative Impacts
Alternative Building Addition Locations
Page Two
200' westward addition * 80,000 So-ft. * 47'-6" above orade * 190' south setback
Negatives:
. Addition size not large enough to support operations,
. Elevation change at old 6th Ave, prevents expansion beyond 200 feet.
Positives:
. Extends existing visual impact west 200 feet but not south
300' eastward addition * 120,000 So-ft, * 43'-6" above orade * 190' south set back
Negatives:
. Operational equipment restricted at lower height office area.
. Some south dock doors remain due to operational design requirements,
. Requires the relocation of a 378 employee parking lot to the south,
o Traffic on south side of property increases,
o Would require site access from the south,
Positives:
. No visual impact change to south and west.
\
I
I
i
i
#I'~$. 12t::..
5oP~RVAt.U -
o
:, L
,
,
,
\
\
,
I
i
I
J
L
L
\
~ II
" I
~ ,
~ \
I
I
I
,
\
I
\
I
I
I
I
J
I
L
,
1
I
\
J
1
\
I
\
I
,
,
I
\
,
\
,
EB
~-
-\U
.' ~"'
ST,
51H,
~1.16ltitllt'fWe, e4l1"111"'~ i1170,TIPP tlP~r/~$>
ff>>'''F11liJ'/#it6I1THIJ f,lll'M1'"
~( \~( iii
<
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
/;
l~n~
-= ?:
,
,
"1
200S DRY GROCERY
WAREHOUSE
ADDITION
UPlOV^,UO"T~""'O'
[N'"
"""'"'."'"
,
IfDI<DAlY "","'
--_.~- .
,,,.............-....'"''
~r,';'.::r.,~;:~;i~~~
O~ 5TH ST.
1QI
~
,,",",
'"~
STRU
"
'~
QJ~S;.~tt'AlON
..~
""''''''N''''''''''''''''''''
~"~",.,""
,.-,',
,,:~-::,..'
I~Z;;'
~~:,,[.l~.~A1IDN
I
r-'"
h"....~..
I. ~.....,.,
51115TRI
ALGI
--,,,,,.,-:-;;;:--.,, ~.~._-
o
''''''''''''''''-~-..............__\''''"''\'''''''''"'''.,
~.
~
"\"
:J:;
h
".
~.
,
"
STREET
5th
40'-0.
~Sll\JaJVIGSETeACK
.~-
5t~O.:t
l'ROP!'OSEDau:w.IIGS(JB\CK
PROffRTYUNE
~
13'-0":1:
3t-S'
EAST ELEVATION
SCJU:1jB-"l-ll'
,
.liill.
\
\
i
I
I
\
I
,
!
'I
~
"
.
.
.
~Ih
~\i.
"'
~
5th 5TREET
32'-1
PROl'Om lJl!E------'
40'-0.
w:M6~se:teil(
,_00
13'-0":\:
52'-O":t:
PllClPOSED61/11.OOlGSEfIlACK
WEST ELEVATION
SCAl.E:va-.. 1'-0. -
,
....ro