Laserfiche WebLink
Discussion on Briggs Proposal <br />May 8, 2006 City Council Worksession <br />Page 3 of 5 <br />could seek similar requests in the future based on affordability (e.g. daycare, hair salon, etc.) <br />so a key concerns should be what retail/service uses are compatible with an industrial park. <br />Second, from a policy standpoint a key consideration is whether or not the City wants to <br />convert industrial areas to more commercial uses due to the limited availability of industrial <br />land. In 2005 the City experienced a great surge in the development of light industrial land; <br />six different sites with a combined total of 45.78 acres were developed with a total of <br />273,000 square feet and creation of 184 new jobs at minimum hourly wages of $15. <br />Currently there exists 31 acres of Business Park property (including the specific lot in <br />request) that is available for new industrial development in 2006. <br />Finally, specific to this request to locate in the Elk River Business Park, it should be noted <br />that allowing such use could affect the Redevelopment Agreement between the City and <br />Associated Investors of Elk River, Inc., Fischer Sand & Aggregate, LLP and Elk River <br />Business Park, LLC (the "Redeveloper") dated July 21, 2000 which outlines a Development <br />Schedule for the build out of specifically "light industrial building space". <br />Zoning Issues <br />From a zoning standpoint, the City already has a zone that allows (with some qualifications) <br />commercial and industrial uses. Zoning Ordinance Section 30-1294 establishes a "BP <br />business park district" with the purpose of the district being industrial, office and <br />commercial. (Use sections attached. It should also be noted that the current zoning of the <br />City's Northstar Business Park is "BP." Commercial uses are only allowed in the "BP" zone <br />if the land use designation on the City's Comprehensive Plan is Highway Business. <br />There are a number of issues associated with the current wording of the "BP" district: <br />1) Since no current "BP" zoned property exists along a highway, and in turn no <br />underlying highway business land use exists on these types of zoned properties, the <br />City elected to remove from the district (summer of 2005) a whole series of retail <br />uses (including health athletic clubs ), both permitted and conditional. <br />2) Although the retail uses were eliminated no amendments were made to the purpose <br />statement that still references commercial uses, albeit with the proper underlying land <br />uses. <br />3) Again, with the idea of eliminating retail uses, no amendments were made to the <br />accessory uses which still allow retail sales for a portion of any industrial space. <br />Under the accessory uses, there are two separate provisions for subordinated space, <br />one section for retail space (allows for ten percent of the building) that is incidental <br />to the products being manufactured on site (Section 30-1294 (c) 4 f.) and a separate <br />section that allows any type of retail activity based on the space not occupying more <br />than 15% of the gross floor area and capped at 5,000 sq ft. (Section 30-1294 (c) 4 b.). <br />4) Another inconsistency in the "BP" zoning district is that under the accessory use <br />section a complementary freestanding retail facility can be constructed up to 20,000 <br />sq.ft. (Section 30-1294 (c.) 4 e.). Since the purpose section was not amended, which <br />