Variance-Super ValuPLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT: VN87 -6
Planning Commission Report -,
VARIANCE - SUPER VALU
101 Jefferson Avenue South
No.
MAY 21, 1987
PURPOSE: To review and recommend action on a 6 foot
height variance.
BACKGROUND:
Name of Applicant: Super Valu Stores Inc.
Address of Property: 101 Jefferson Avenue
South
Present Zoning: 1 -2
Nature of Request: Height variance of 6 feet
Reason for Request: Not economical to
operate a freezer warehouse with a building
height of less than 43 feet.
The applicant is proposing to construct a new rreezer
addition which is 43 feet in height. A Conditional Use
Permit has also been applied for.
The proposed freezer addition will be 43 feet high.
The maximum height for an I -2 District is 35 feet, but
because the mean ground level is determined by the
elevation of the building that has frontage on a public
road, the addition will only require a 6 foot variance.
Recently Merchants was approved for a freezer addition
which was over 35 feet, but because the mean ground
level was lower the addition met the height
requirements.
ANALYSIS: The maximum height for a building in the
industrial districts is 35 feet. Merchants did not
need a variance because of the elevation of their
building, but their new freezer is higher than 35 feet.
It seems that the 35 foot height is not a practical
height because of changing standards within the
•
VN87 -6
Page 2
industry. The zoning ordinance should be changed to a
height of 45 feet. Super Valu does have buildings on
the site over 35 feet. The office building is 44 feet
high. It was built before the present ordinance was
enacted.
The visual impact for the surrounding neighborhoods
should be minimal. The residents view along Monroe
will be blocked by the other buildings on the site and
the Edina residents will have a sound barrier
constructed to block their view. If the variance is
denied, Super Valu will probably expand the building to
accommodate the lost space.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. Approve the variance
2. Deny the variance
3. Continue for further information
RECOMMENDATION: I recommend Alternative #1. The
following are suggested Findings of Fact should the
Commission recommend approval:
1. That the limitation of 35 feet in height
within the ordinance is inadequate and
perhaps should be revised to 45 feet.
2. The variance would not cause a hardship on
surrounding properties.
Conditions:
1. That the Conditional Use Permit is granted.
Respectfully submitted,
!4.11 1LL
Nancy E Anderson
Commun ty Development
Analyst