Item 5.6 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

• office/warehouse buildings envisioned for this location would not be finished greater than 25-40%. This leaves 60-75% of unfinished space and our concern is with limiting the use of this space in such a manner that we are unable to effectively market this property. Also, these are aggregate numbers. In individual tenant spaces, unfinished areas will range from 0 to 100%. We have always felt that your building codes could much more effectively regulate the issues at hand and meet your goals by requiring some kind of public hearing approval for buildings that are clearly designed as distribution buildings. For example, our first building is an 18' clear height with bay sizes of less than 5,000 square feet. The NAIOP definition of distribution is far outside those parameters. A distribution building would be in the clear height range of 24'-32' and have bay sizes ranging from 8-15,000 square feet with much greater depth than our first building has or that we anticipate having for other future buildings. If you deem it necessary to place percentage limitations on the amount of warehouse space, then we would request the following: • We would like to see the 50% limitation on warehouse space be viewed in aggregate for any particular building rather than on an individual tenant basis. This would allow more flexibility on our part with regard to marketing and individual tenant negotiations. The goals of the City would simply be established and achieved on an overall square footage basis rather than on an individual square footage basis. • We would also like to raise the maximum percentage of warehouse allowed under the conditional use section from 65% to a higher number and simply not preclude an approval, for example, of a build-to-suit for a company that Elk River desires to attract to its community and under a specific percentage limitation would be precluded from doing so. We have written this letter in the spirit of working together with the City of Elk River in a positive and collaborative manner based upon the intent established when the development agreement was first negotiated and entered into. Our requests, we believe, do not deviate from those goals and are more in synch with market in general and also for this site, specifically. We are hopeful of a positive response when we meet before the EDA on October 8`h and subsequent meetings with the planning commission and city council. If any additional information is required, please call me. —Y. •-ry truly, Richard V. Martens President RVM/bb • Cc: Michele McPherson—City of Elk River Jim Winkels —Partner, Elk River Business Park, LLC Liza Robson — Partner, Elk River Business Park, LLC Tony Gleekel- Siegel, Brill, Greupner, Duffy& Foster, P. A.