pf_03223 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Pf~d-~Q ROSEVILLE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MEMO TO: FROM: SUBJECT: STEVE SARKOZY, CITY MANAGER DENNIS WELSCH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR MNDOT BUILDING AT WATER'S EDGE 06/06/2000 JOEL J; THOMAS P; DATE: CC: This week we received word from MnDOT that they will not comply with the City Land Use regulations, except as they see fit, regarding the retrofitting and expansion of the Water's Edge Building. There are questions that relate to the parking available on site, the traffic entry and exits on to City streets, the coordination with the signal at B-2 and Snelling; the building setback from B-2 - MnDOT; emergency access to the site with but one entry; a MnDOT survey that shows the building is in the R.O.W; the transfer of land from Snelling Avenue R.O.W. to parking space for an office building (Water's Edge); adherence to the existing City and MnDNR lake setback and size/height variances granted in the 1970s and 1980s; and conditions of the existing Special Use Permit. MnDOT bought the 200,000 s.f. building. and site with these pre-existing conditions, variances and SUP already approved and attached to the property. This is not highway R.O.W., but an office building - which could be anywhere. It is unclear if MnDOT may simply ignore or pre-empt pre- existing permits and approvals, in effect changing the zoning and the setbacks for their purposes without City Council approval. MnDOT admits that its property survey shows that a portion of the building does not meet the current setbacks, and may be located on City R.O.W. Staff has prepared a list of procedures (minor subdivisions, CUP amendment, and R.O.W vacations) that would remedy many of these issues, but have been told by MnDOT that such hearings and approvals will not be adhered to, and that construction of the parking lots will start with or without permits in June or July. While the at-grade parking lot is but one simple issue that can be managed by staff, it starts the land use pattern wherein a 50,000 s.f. addition to an office building will begin. An issue that should be discussed with our attorneys is the level of responsibility we should accept in this case. By this I mean, if MnDOT insists on building/expanding an office building without meeting city codes or reviews, what is our legal exposure if the building malfunctions, floods, has inadequate emergency access in time of an emergency, or is sold/leased by MnDOT to a private sector business in the future. Are there adequate parking spaces on the site today to cover the expansions? - My understanding is there is not enough parking, but MnDOT prefers to sweep that under the table because they cannot get financing for the needed ramp. (What private sector user would the City allow to do this?) MnDOT has said that if it does not get the land use and permit answers it wants from the City, it will pre-empt the City and take the project to the State Department of Administration - Codes Division - for building permits. If the City has no control over this development, why should the City invest the time, hearings, review and issuance of permits, inspection of the building, and accept (partial?) responsibility for the building, life safety, and land use function. \ \ VIcrORIA \COMMDEV\GENERAL CORRESPONDENCE\DENNISW\STEVEMNDOT.DOC