Loading...
3 .-(,/ A.( c / • = , City of , MEMORANDUM Elk ,. River TO: Planning Commission FROM: Michele McPhersoc, Director of Planning DATE: January 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Request to Reconsider Business Park Building Material Standards By Brookstone, Inc. We have received the attached letter from Rick Martens of Brookstone, Inc. regarding the recent amendments to the business park building material standards. He will be in attendance at the January 9th Planning Commission workshop meeting in order to discuss potential changes to the building material standards which would allow the use of architecturally-treated concrete tip-up panels. • During our last discussion regarding business park standards, several options were raised regarding this issue: 1. Tip up panels as a conditional use 2. Site plan review and approval by the Planning Commission. Both options will require an ordinance amendment. The same concern has also been expressed by representatives from United Properties (see attached e-mail). • S:\PLANNING\MICHMC\PLREPRTS\BROOKSTN.DOC 13065 Orono Parkway • P.O. Box 490 • Elk River, MN 55330 • TDD & Phone (763) 441-7420 • Fax (763) 441-7425 •: ?rivri BROOKSTONE,INC. • 7400 Metro Blvd.,Suite 212 Edina,Minnesota 55439 Tuesday,November 14,2000 612.837.9167 phone 612.837.8010 fax Ms. Michele McPherson Director of Planning,City of Elk River 13065 Orono Parkway PO Box 490 Elk River,Minnesota 55330 Dear Michele: I appreciate the opportunity that Tom Schock,of Griffin Companies,and I had to meet with Cathy Mehelich, Mark Nevinski,and yourself,to discuss the Elk River Business Park. We are excited about finally having broken ground on this project and working with you in making this a successful project for both of us. In our meeting,you indicated that the City of Elk River has adopted several amendments to the zoning ordinance that affect our property. We were not aware that this was happening and hence,have some concern with a few of the changes in that they would have a very significant impact on our ability to market the space, which we have currently constructed,and the balance of the park. Let me say,firstly,that we are in full support of all reasonable attempts to ensure the highest level of aesthetic • quality possible. We,of course,have to balance that with economic factors and have to compete with the _ neighboring market area. We are requesting modification in the following areas to address our concerns. We,again,are not.trying'to compromise quality. We sincerely believe that,if you look at any number of business parks throughout the twin cities,especially those developed and with buildings constructed during the 1990's,you will find that considerable use of materials as the dominant design on front faces of buildings are significantly limited in your revised ordinance. Our specific request for modifications follows below: 1. We believe and are requesting that exposed aggregate concrete panels,burnished concrete block, exposed aggregate concrete block,architecturally treated cast in placed concrete panels,artificial stucco (EIFS)and artificial stone should be Class I materials. We are in concurrence that a plain,raked or smooth panel should not be a Class I material. As it currently reads,the only affordable Class I material is the integral colored,split faced block;and in the opinion of our architects,this in an inferior product to the pre-cast panels in terms of long-term building durability and general aesthetic appeal. Pre-cast material is a superior insulator and provides a better moisture resistant wall than a block building. While there has been some use of rock faced block,it is not common as a primary material. During the 1990's a significant number of industrial buildings and business parks have utilized,as a dominant material,the pre-cast alternatives you have classified as Class II. We are equally concerned with the requirement that walls not facing public rights-of-way,etc.cannot be constructed of more than 60% Class II materials. This would mean,for example,that at least 40%of a loading dock wall would have to be constructed of Class I materials. This would not only destroy the economics of most potential projects but also be inconsistent with standards in place throughout Twin Cities industrial park areas. • 2. We are,for obvious reasons,quite concerned with making any use utilizing more than 30%warehouse space as a conditional use. Our building and future buildings are general office/warehouse buildings with the warehouse to be utilized for a variety of industrial uses including light manufacturing,service, storage,R&D,etc. We can understand your concern for having truck terminals in business park REAL ESTATE ADVISORY SERVICES,INVESTMENT AND DEVELOPMENT • settings but I believe you could make that a conditional use by itself without generally stating that any building of more than 30%warehouse would require a conditional use approval. Again,this is an office/warehouse building that has been designed and constructed. Similar buildings are anticipated for the remaining sites. Under your Statement of Purpose,you indicate that the business park district is established to encourage a planned and integrated environment for certain industrial,office and commercial uses. Industrial and office uses are allowed where a land use designation is light industrial. Industrial means a variety of non-office uses generally carried out in a warehouse setting(i.e.concrete floor,open joist ceiling,generally not air conditioned). 3. With regard to retail sales,for several years as we collaboratively planned this business park with the City of Elk River,we all anticipated a variety of business uses including some with commercial applications such as flooring company,lighting facility,other home decorating products,etc. This, generally,would not be retail such as a food/drug store,but rather would be activity where contractors, designers,and customers might visit a space that incorporates showroom/display areas. It was always anticipated that these would be logical uses for this location and this is particularly true given the proximity to Home Depot,Walmart,etc. As long as the 15%limitation does not apply to display/showroom areas,then I do not think I would be concerned,but that would need to be clarified. I am also concerned that no sign would be allowed promoting that retail sales occur. Certainly,a sign would not directly say that,but would have to identify a company such as"ABC Lighting Company". If you can clarify for me that our interpretation of this revised ordinance is the same in that we would be permitted uses such as the several examples identified above,then I think my concern would be alleviated. 4. In addition,I am concerned that,while you indicated our first building in the Elk River Business Park was grandfathered,by making it non-conforming,its current and future value will be impacted. To be non-conforming is often an unacceptable status on the part of buyers and/or lenders for projects of this • type and we certainly proceeded with designing,constructing,and financing this building on the basis that it met all of the rules and regulations pertaining to it when your staff approvals and building permits were granted. Had we received notice of these amendments,we would have opposed them. I am hopeful that we can now work together in a cooperative manner to make reasonable modifications to your amendments in a way that works for both of us. Please let me know how we can move forward with this. I would like to have the opportunity of being a part of the presentations to your planning commission and city council,as you consider these matters. Thank you for your understanding of our concerns. Yo ly, 'c d V.Martens President RVM/bb Cc:Mark Huess Dennis Cornelius Tom Schock Shawn Meschke • Tony Gleekel Page 1 of 1 Michele McPherson • From: Catherine Mehelich [cmehelich@ci.elk-river.mn.us] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:44 AM To: Michele McPherson Subject: FW: FYI -we should talk about this sometime and how you'd like to address this with the Planning Commission. Original Message From: Tony Kuechle [mailto:tkuechle@uproperties.com] Sent: Tuesday, November 21, 2000 10:33 AM To: cmehelich@ci.elk-river.mn.us Subject: Cathy, Thanks for meeting and spending time with me in regards to possible Business Parks within Elk River. Also thanks for the Business Park District Standards. There are two ordinances that could propose a problem. The first is building materials, as we already talked about, and I know that this could change. You may want to look on Fabcon's web site for some different panel designs. They are located at www.fabcon-usa.com. The other is a Conditional Use Permit is required when the warehousing component of the floor are is in excess of 30%.This can be problem if any multi-tenant buildings are developed. We are limited to the tenants that could initially lease the project, or any re-tenanting of the building This puts us at a disadvantage to other competitive buildings in other cities. As we continue to look for land in the Northwest these could be some stumbling blocks in considering Elk River. I response to your question in regards to our Corporate Real Estates' site selection process, I have talked with Jeff LaFavre who specializes in this process. He would be happy to discuss this with you. His phone number is 612.893.8839. He will be expecting your call. 10 Cathy, thanks once again, and I am sure we will be talking in the future. Tony Kuechle Project Manager- Development United Properties • 12/15/00