10-23-2001 PC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Planning Commission Minutes October 23,2001 Page 8 . Commissioner Baker asked if there are places within the City where warehouses and the types of businesses under discussion are allowed at this time. Ms. McPherson stated that currently, a straight warehousing or distribution business would only be allowed in the 12 or the 12 districts. She noted that the Business Park was designed to encourage a higher standard in building quality, manufacturing, research and development, and office type uses. A use such as a truck terminal would only be allowed in the medium industrial district, such as the Cascade Industrial Park proposed on Jarvis Street. Commissioner Baker felt that increasing the amount of warehouse space would detract from the purpose of the business park district. Ms. McPherson stated that now there is more of a mix between uses and the difference between warehousing, showroom, and other types of uses in not as clear cut as it used to be. She explained that the amendment will open the business park for more warehouse-type uses, but it will not open it up for uses use as a truck terminal or purely a distribution warehouse. Chair Pederson felt that the amendment will defeat the intent of the Business Park District Statement of Purpose. Chair Pederson opened the public hearing. . Rick Martens, President of Brookstone, Inc., explained that he felt it was always very clear in negotiating the development agreement for Elk River Business Park that they were interested in constructing office/warehouse type buildings. He stated that he is aware that it is the goal of the City to attract businesses that provide more jobs per square feet of space, rather than fewer. Mr. Martens stated that he feels they have developed a product to fit the market which is a hybrid mix of office/warehouse and a mix of finished and unfinished space. He did not feel it is realistic to expect that Elk River will be able to attract a large amount of manufacturing, since manufacturing is only about 16 percent of the total work force in America. Mr. Martens stated that building finishes on this type of product is typically only about 25 to 35 percent, which will be offices and showroom space. The remainder would be unfinished space with uses including a limited amount of manufacturing, warehouse, distribution, service, maintenance, repair and refinishing businesses. Mr. Martens eXplained that a distribution center in the Twin Cities is defined as a 24 - 32 ft. clear building with 10,000 ft. bays, and 250-300 feet in depth. The types of buildings they are proposing are not distribution buildings; they have quality building fronts, and there would be no front-loaded buildings. Mr. Martens felt that given the building standards which are now in place, there is ample protection that the City will not be getting the type of buildings they don't want to see. Mr. Martens stated he would prefer to see the control by way of building design. He did not feel requiring a conditional use permit for 65 percent warehouse was appropriate and felt 50 to 80 percent made more sense. Also, he would like to see the 50 percent limitation on warehouse space be viewed in aggregate for multi-tenant buildings. If the Commission does not feel this proposal is appropriate, he would be willing to accept the EDA's recommendation, although he does not agree with the 65 percent limitation. . Chair Pederson asked for clarification on Mr. Martens comment of control by building design. Mr. Martens eXplained that if the City specifically did not wish to see distribution buildings, they could prohibit truck terminals, front-loaded buildings, and require a conditional use permit for any building over 18 foot clear ceiling height, since a distribution building is 24 - 32 foot clear. He felt this would work well with the market.