pm_060104 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

City of Roseville - Planning Commission Minutes for January 4, 2006http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/council/planning/minutes/2006/pm0104.htm ownership, which property lines will pass through a section of the proposed new office structure. This situation creates an encroachment into the required side yard setback as stipulated in Section 1005 and 1007 of the Roseville City Code. In review of the Business and Industrial Districts Dimensional Requirements, there is no allowance stipulated whereby a property line can (legally) be placed through a building without first obtaining a variance. And although there are a number of parcels/structures currently in Roseville with property lines running through them, staff is unable to support such a division of land without the necessary VARIANCES. The proposed pond redesign and development of an office building that will connect the 2 existing office structures, creating a unified campus is very unique, especially when considering the proposed three lot PLAT. The Development Review Committee has reviewed the proposed site improvements and concluded that the granting of VARIANCES will not create an adverse impact on adjacent properties (should all other requirements as stated above be met). Deb Bloom explained the Fulham Pond Basin and its pumping system. The proposal does meet the storage requirements of the City. A public improvement contact is required for reconstruction of the pond and new underground pipe lines and easements, agreements, and indemnifications. The staff recommended approval of the project in the form of three draft motions for the Commission to consider. Chair Traynor asked if the conditions in the report are adequate. (Yes, with new SEH tests and pumping capacity work.) Mr. Paschke explained that the utility and drainage easement vacations can be accomplished at the same time as the dedication of new easements within the plat, which he also explained in detail. Member Bakeman asked for clarification on the lots and blocks and where the lot lines fall on the buildings. Paschke and Bloom illustrated the lines. Steve Alm, Bonestroo Project Manager and Bob Barth were introduced. He explained that parking lot 1 will be expanded to the north and the south parking lot will be filled for parking. The building will be four stories, approximately 63,000 s.f. and occupied over a series of years with the first two floors to be occupied upon completion. In 5 years additional parking (deck) will be constructed north of the east parking lot, with campus total expansion to 140,000 s.f. and 500 employees. Gretchen Ternes, owner of adjacent property to the north, asked about access to the north parking lot through lot 1. Would the ramp be placed north of the office building? (yes) Who owns the land under the pond? (Bonestro) . She asked for clarification on the storage ponding and shore land slope maintenance. It looks incomplete and messy to her. (When done, Steve Alm reported, the site will be a demonstration of native materials and pervious parking surfaces designed by Bonestroo in other projects.) Member Doherty asked how high the water rises in the pond. Deb Bloom explained that the normal pool height is 906.5 but the water can bounce up 12 feet to 918.5 and at flood stage is 920, which is the worst case scenario. There being no further questions Chair Traynor closed the hearing. Motion 1: Member Bakeman moved, second by Member Doherty to recommend approval of the VACATION of CERTAIN PUBLIC EASEMENTS, based on the comments of Section 4 and 5, and the conditions of Section 9 (9.1 A, B,C) of the project report dated January 4, 2006. Member Wozniak asked if the pond capacity was maintained and what may happen with the fast in-flow. Deb Bloom explained that the storm-surface water will behave the same, with free flow from the south to the north. The models indicate that this will be attained and meet city requirements when pumps are working properly. Bob Barth explained that the site will use permeable pavement to allow for infiltration on parking lots. Ayes: 4 Nays: 0 Motion carried: 4-0 Motion 2: Member Traynor moved, second by Member Doherty to recommend approval of the 6 of 83/13/2006 8:52 AM