03-28-16-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION – FEBRUARY 29, 2016 2 color along with bottom edge of each building. The Council supported this change and the two buildings were constructed using this design. City Planner Streff explained as with any building project, certain inspections are required as the developer nears the completion of the project. Staff conducted a façade inspection of the building shells on February 11, 2016, and found that the west elevation on Building 1 was missing a large bank of windows and other façade enhancement around the window opening area. The omission of the windows and façade enhancements were not included in the approved PUD plan set or the plan set that was submitted to the City for the building permit plan review. Staff believes that the change in façade for Building 1 is significant and requires a PUD Amendment in order for the change to be permitted. City Planner Streff stated the developer has informed the City that the prospective tenant for this space is scheduled to begin moving in on March 1, 2016. The City Council is asked to provide direction on whether a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy could be issued in advance of this issue being resolved. City Planner Streff indicated staff has consulted with the City Attorney on this matter and it has been determined that a PUD Amendment would be required for these façade changes. If the Council shows support for the façade changes as constructed, staff will work with the applicant and the City Attorney to prepare a PUD Amendment. The amendment in this case is not required to go back to the Planning Commission unless the Council directs staff to proceed to the Planning Commission first. City Planner Streff requested the City Council discuss the façade changes to Building 1 of the Red Fox Business Center and provide feedback to the developer regarding these changes. Councilmember Wicklund questioned how the City typically addressed minor changes to a PUD. City Planner Streff explained all minor changes are submitted to staff and are reviewed by the building, engineering and planning departments. Councilmember Wicklund asked how the City has managed a situation like this in the past. City Planner Streff stated he was not aware of this happening in the past. Community Development Director Hutmacher commented this was a very unusual situation and explained that commercial projects do not typically have any significant changes that occur during the actual construction without prior City approval. Councilmember Holden inquired if the City could keep the building occupants off the premises. City Planner Streff indicated it would be difficult for the City to require a business to vacate the premises if allowed to move into the space. He explained he spoke with the City Attorney regarding this matter and was advised that City staff should not be issuing a certificate of occupancy until the Council reviews the façade changes.