Variance/Height G\TY OF
J
February 15, 2005 1-10PKINS Planning Report
VARIANCE HEIGHT
Proposed Action.
Staff recommends the following motion: Move to adopt Resolution RZ05 -3,
recommending approval of a height variance for the addition to Supervalu.
Overview.
Supervalu is proposing to construct a 120,000 square -foot addition, to the existing
building at 300 Second Street South. The proposed' addition will be located on the south
side of the existing building. SuperValu is proposing to remove the existing fence, and
the building face would act as the fence. The Fire Marshal will not allow the fence if the
addition is constructed. 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.
Pr Issues to Cons
What does the ordinance require?
What are the specifics of the applicant's request?
What special circumstances or hardship does the property have?
Supporting Documents.
Analysis of Issues
Site Plans
Resolution RZ05 -3
C: a
Nanc S. Anderson, AICP
Planner
Financial Impact: N/A Budgeted: Y/N Source:
ii•
Related Documents (CEP, ERP, etc.):
Notes:
VN05 -1
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.
1111 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.
Alternatives.
1. Recommend approval of the variance. By recommending approval of the variance,
the City Council will consider a recommendation of approval.
2. Recommend denial of the variance. By recommending denial of the variance, the
City Council will consider a recommendation of denial. If the Planning
Commission considers this alternative, findings of fact will have to be stated that
support this recommendation.
3. Continue for further information. If the Planning Commission indicates that further
information is needed, the item should be continued.
i
CITY OF HOPKINS
Hennepin County, Minnesota
RESOLUTION NO: RZ05 -3
RESOLUTION MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF 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, 2005: all persons present were given an opportunity to be
heard;
3. That the written comments and analysis of the City staff were considered;
and
4. Legal description of the parcel is as follows:
Lot 1, Block 1, Supervalu Addition
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that application for Variance VNO5-1 is
hereby recommended for approval based on the following Findings of Fact:
1. That the height variance will allow the new addition to match the existing
building.
2. That the height variance will allow the necessary clearance for Supervalu to
operate within the building.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that application for Variance VN05 -1 is hereby
recommended for approval based on the following conditions:
1. That the Site Plan is approved.
Adopted this 22nd day of February 2005.
ATTEST:
Mary Hatcher, Chair
Q k i ^y 3 o
Q$ z o 1 o a e e Z
S a o t g
x v LL `1t i
8g p ig o
Ii iH i:
L a
1 I
9 ,7_,
n
I 9
ill.
a
P
I
o
1
s
1
ii i -P
_I 1
al I 3? ;n
OY Y
12=1 w n
I�■I■.
iliiii
_1_ ET
E
i
1
!111111111113
i
1i■I■i 311 Illik
\r
ij III •a =.3
M
IBM 1
11 11111111
t 3
ilia
ES I
=.3 a 'all Elf
l il 11,