Loading...
CR 07-26 - Variance - Height CITY OF ~ HOPKINS April 13, 2005 Council Report 05-26 VARIANCE - HEIGHT ProDosed Action. Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution 05-19 approving a height variance for the southerly addition to the Supervalu building at 300 Second Avenue South. Overview. Supervalu is proposing to construct a 120,000-square-foot addition to the existing building at 300 Second Avenue South. The proposed addition ~ill 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? SUDDortin!! Documents. . Analysis of Issues . Site Plans ~~ Nanc . Anderson, AICP Planner Financial Impact: $ N/ A Budgeted: Related Documents (CIP, ERP, etc.): Notes: Y/N Source: CR05-26 Page 2 Primary 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 findings are outlined within the resolution but the following are several of the findings: 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, the natural elevation rises over 35 feet from the west to the east, and the public utility easement and underground utilities are located on the west side of the site. 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 recom~endation. 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: 05-19 RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND APPROVING A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT WHEREAS, an application for Variance VN05-1 has been made by Supervalu; and WHEREAS, the procedural history ofthe 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. That Hopkins City Council considered the application for the variance at its regular meeting on March 15,2005, and at a special meeting on April 13, 2005. All persons present were given an opportunity to be heard; and 5. Legal description of the parcel is as follows: Lot 1, Block 1, Supervalu Addition NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOPKINS, MINNESOTA, 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 proposed building addition and the applicant's use thereof are consistent with the City's comprehensive plan, and such use is a permitted use in the 1-2 zoning district in which the subject property is located. 2. The height of the applicant's existing building located on the subject property is 47.5 feet. The appliqant has demonstrated that the proposed building addition requires a continuation ofthe 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 ofthe pre-existing use ofthe subject property by applicant is a reasonable use of such property. Hopcivil\ResolutionAppHeight 1 . of larger trees than required by Ordinance, trees of different varieties and new landscaping, all of which will reduce the negative effect ofthe proposed addition on the residential neighborhood located to the south. BASED ON THE FOREGOING FINDINGS OF FACT, the City Council of the City of Hopkins, Minnesota, hereby determines that the literal enforcement ofthe maximum building height of 35 feet would cause an undue hardship because of circumstances unique to the subject property, that the granting of the requested variance to the extent necessary to compensate for such hardship is in keeping with the intent of the Hopkins City Code, that the proposed expansion of applicant's building is a reasonable use of the subject property and that granting of the variance will not alter the essential character of the area in which it is located. Therefore, application for Variance VN05-1 is approved subject to the following conditions: 1. That the Site Plan is approved. Adopted this 13th day of April, 2005. ATTEST: Eugene J. Maxwell, Mayor Terry Obermaier, City Clerk HopciviJ\ResolutionAppHeight 3 3. That the subject property has a natural elevation that rises over 35 feet from the west to the east, limiting the location of the existing building and the proposed addition on the site. 4. When the existing warehouse building was constructed on the site by applicant, applicant was required to design the building with the truck staging, access and loading and unloading facilities located on the north side of the building. While an expansion ofthe 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 staging, access, loading and unloading on its north side. There is no location on the site other than the north side of the existing facility at which truck access is permitted. The truck staging area on the north side of the site must be maintained to prevent trucks from standing on adjacent public streets. Expansion ofthe existing facility to the north would also conflict with the truck turning facilities presently located on the north side of the site. 5. A public utility easement and underground utilities are located on the west side of the existing building limiting possible expansion to the west. 6. Expansion of the existing building to the east would require relocation of the employee parking lot to the south side of the building resulting in additional traffic on 5th Street South. 7. Expansion ofthe existing building to the south will result in elimination of 53 truck dock doors presently located on the south side ofthe building and relocation of the trash compactor to the west side ofthe building. This will result in reduction of noise from the site to the residential area located south of the project site. 8. Existing overhead lights will be removed as part of the expansion of applicant's building to the south reducing lighting impacts on the residential area south of the project site. . 9. 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. 10. The site plan and landscaping plan for the proposed addition include the planting Hopcivil\ResolutionAppHeight 2