Laserfiche WebLink
<br />1P/NL <br />~f. ~ 1-1.? <br /> <br /> <br />Community Development Department Memo <br /> <br />TO: <br />FROM: <br />SUBJECT: <br />DATE: <br />CC: <br /> <br />STEVE SARKOZY, CITY MANAGER <br />DENNIS WELSCH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR (651-490-2232) <br />MNDOT BUILDING AT WATER'S EDGE <br />OS/24/2000 <br />JOEL J; THOMAS P; <br /> <br />This week we received word from MnDOT that they will not comply with the City Land Use <br />regulations, except as they see fit, regarding the retrofitting and expansion of the Water's Edge <br />Building. There are questions that relate to the parking available on site, the traffic entry and exits <br />onto City streets, the coordination with the signal at B-2 and Snelling; the building setback from B-2; <br />emergency access to the site with but one entry; a MnDOT survey that shows the building is in the <br />R.O.W; the transfer of land froin Snelling Avenue R.O.W. to parking space for an office building. <br />(Water's Edge); adherence to the existing City and MnDNR lake setback and size/height variances <br />granted in the 1970s and 1980s; and conditions of the existing Special Use Permit. <br /> <br />MnDOT bought the 200,060 sJ. building and'site with these pre-existing conditions, variances <br />. and SUP already approved and attached to the property. This is not highway R. O. W., but an office <br />building - which could be anywhere. According to the City Attorney's office, if MnDOT maysimply <br />ignore pre-existing permits and approvals, in effect changing the zoning and the setbacks fonheir <br />purposes without City Council approval. MnDOT admits that its property survey shows that a <br />portion of the building.does not meet the current setbacks, and may belocated on City R.O.W. <br /> <br />Staff has prepared it. list Of procedures (minor subdivisions, CUP amendment, and R.O.W <br />vac;1tions) that would remedy many of these issues, but have bee~ told by MnDOT that such <br />hearings and approvals will not be adhered to, and that construction of the parking lots will start with <br />or without permits in June or July. While the at-grade parking lot is but one simple issue that can be <br />managed by staff, it starts the land use pattern wherein a 50,000 sJ. addition to an office building will <br />.. begin. <br /> <br />. . <br />An issue that should be discussed with our attorneys is the level of responsibility we should <br />accept ill this case. -By this I mean, if MnDOT insists on building/expanding an office building <br />without meeting city codes or reviews, what is our legal exposure if the building malfunctions, floods, <br />has inadequate emergency access in time of an eMergency, or is sold/leased by MnDOT to a private <br />sector business in the future. Are there adequate parking spaces on the site today to cover the <br />expansions? - My understanding is there is not.enough parking, but MnDOT prefers to sweep that <br />under the table because they cannot get financing for the needed ramp. (What private sector user <br />would the City allow to do this?) MnDOT has said that if it does npt geuhe land use and permit' <br />. . answers it wants from the City, it will pre-empt the CitY andtake the project to the State Department <br />of Administration.- Codes Division - for.building permits.lf the City has no control over this <br />