I will go ahead and call the meeting to order start with a roll call mcke here lanterman here bota Von Camp here Nichols here all righty and this is a work session uh we will get right into it uh for the sketch plan for the Oswald business park at 19510 County Road 30 and is who's handling this one Mr Mar can briefly give an update this was a a work session called by the council and staff simply provided some back ground information um uh about actions to date the applicant is here tonight and does have a few slides uh uh some of which were in your packet which show the evolution of the site plan in uh in more detail they're here to answer questions and the landowner uh is here as well sounds and we're happy to answer any questions of Staff as well but don't have a presentation prepared okay any initial questions off the bat or we can get started with the applicant we could just uh state your name and address for the record and Conor McCarthy United properties uh 250 nicholet Mall Minneapolis um well hi again we've we've met I'll just jump right into it um I've got a few slides and I don't plan on doing much of a presentation it's more of a guide to open a discussion I don't think I'll accomplish anything by just talking at you tonight so um if you move to the first slide here this is what I'm going to briefly talk about evolution of the plan where we were when we first met with the Oswald family and the first plan we put together 12 months later 10 months later technically where we are today on our planning and uh how we've Incorporated feedback talk about a little bit of a deeper dive into our current plan and then kind of into zoning to a discussion um so here's our first plan this is the first plan we cre created with our consultant team after reviewing the zoning code um these were much more distribution Centric buildings with trailer parking in between uh in between the buildings uh nearly a million feet of development and much larger buildings like I mean the largest building here is I think 124,000 ft um and depths of 310 to 320 ft I mean these are truly distribution Deep Bay buildings um fast forward to our next plan um right after our first conversation with City staff we learned that just wasn't going to fly this isn't was never intended to be a distribution Centric site business park was intended more for what we believed and staff in my opinion believed uh buildings such as this so we've Incorporated a public Plaza a connection Road up to the north and to the east for some recommendations a trail on the north side of the property and shrunk the buildings removed trailer parking thought this would be more of a business park style buildings um fast forward again we've reduced the overall size of development we met with Hunter Ridge and shifted the the uh Trail Southward um away from the property line to satisfy those residents and added additional public Plaza space so as you can see this is now June of 24 from I think October to June a fairly sizable change in plan uh and then fast forward I believe to the plan that's most recent as of today the only difference here being that between the Middle two buildings we've corrected the setback issues to now comply with what the city code uh was intended to do so that's that's actually not the only change you also deleted 232 loading docks according to the packet I received these buildings would only have 15 to 20 loading docks total so this plan would only have can you go back one slide but I I I think that was a confusion Mark and again everybody was set that this was a distribution and the the the lines that were there but there are loading docks there no the lines that were there were there were representative parking spots for cars and those kind of things and he had made the comment that there wasn't they weren't full-blown loading docks on the back side why does it say truck docks so is that a mistake too no there are truck docks in these buildings there's not trailer parking so the difference being the truck docks allow you know businesses to load product in and out of their facility the trailer parking allows for them to store their trailers their 52t semi-trailers on the property overnight and that's been entirely eliminated from right but you had said that that was the only change and it wasn't you also removed I 232 truck docks it was removed at one point in this process yes I misunderstood then sorry so I mean there were lines representing so I maybe still don't understand but um I'll move forward here to the next slide so so this is maybe can help answer that question after our first staff meeting and the first council meeting with you all we somebody spoke about those lines on the plan showing um where the docks would be and they seemed to look like trailer parking areas they weren't intended to be that and so we've removed those lines from the plan but never really intended to have trailer parking in the plan so to clarify that was removed and so after that we then met with Hope Church Hunter Ridge and the bellweather community and I can say in the nine years I've been doing this I've never once had three different neighboring groups actually be somewhat supportive of the project can I jump in again um I spoke with Brian loother of Hope Church and he told me that he was he was not putting his support behind this project I met with uh I met with uh the neighborhood up on Hunter's Ridge and in bellweather and I spoke with several dozen people there who told me that this project was described to them as petite PE yes and they all Ed the same word which I thought was interesting I was there too sure so I'm sure well I see some Hunters Rich folks I see a representative of the church and maybe they can speak to that if that's appro but I I just don't want it represented as though hope church is for this or the neighbors there are for this because not a single neighbor I spoke with was once they understood how large this was were they supportive you know this is a good it'll lead to the Crux of why we're here today which is the zoning designation of the property and I think what each of these neighbors have expressed to me is that through responsible development and thoughtful development they would support a project that does that I mean there's there's ways to develop that are more thoughtful than others and I think that's what was respected about what our team has accomplished so um to the next slide I wanted to just give um you know here's there here's our current plan this is it's four buildings inal total at 670,000 Square ft with buildings that are 200 ft to 220 ft deep um a large change from where we started and the buildings size range from 160 to 176,000 s and I do have a couple of examples of projects that I've worked on that I've got some imagery and examples of the tenants that occupy them so we can talk about some of the more details behind this today but these buildings have removed the trailer parking they have shortened the depth which is much more uh conducive to Natural lighting for production space for manufacturing space for office space to be built out in these buildings than the Deep Bay warehouses uh that you see up in in Dayton and Rogers how many truck docks physical docks we typically average one to one and a half per Bay per building so like I said probably 15 to 20 docks per building so 60 to 80 docks in this plan but but they're not they're not Illustrated here well you have to understand that this is from a bird's eye view and the docks are on I get that but they were on your last application it says truck docks and then on this new plan you deleted all of the truck Docks but now you just said that there are truck Docks but but they're not here you know with all due respect there's a gross misunderstanding of what we're you know what I'm trying to explain to you which is that there are and always have been truck docks it's the lines that were at this council meeting there was a complaint about how those lines looked as far as representing trailer parking in my understanding and so we removed those because of that comment but there are docks on these buildings yes on one side of each building you did reduce the count though which is good I think cuz the previous plan showed I think 58 or so per building so you've cut that by more than half yeah right at the at the last meeting I know you were asked for the ratio of Office Space versus distribution slash Trucking I I don't see that ratio in the new application do you have a ratio you can share with us so we don't have a new application um and if if you want to fast forward to the Brooklyn Park example of projects I'll I'll come back to this because okay but do so you don't have a ratio I can speak to it through example and then so the next slide has some so the these are buildings that me and United properties have developed in the last 3 years these are projects located at the southwest corner of Highway 610 and 169 not that far from here we're probably all have driven by it and are familiar with it these buildings range in size from 110,000 ft to 21,000 ft these buildings represented a tax base increase to the city of Brooklyn Park from $100,000 to 5 million this these buildings represented over a thousand jobs created to the community and seven headquarters and this was once high density mixed use land in Brooklyn Park that was not suitable with its zoning district and was created and rezoned into business park for this use and this is cretex a medical manufacturer home to over 300 employees Tesla manufacturer Minneapolis glass a manufacturer and on the other side of the highway worth Adams and nilfisk other manufacturing headquarters to the community and so your question about how these buildings break down I can speak to each one of these I know them like the back of my hand pretex has two stories of DES office over 880,000 ft of office in that building the rest is high-tech clean room manufacturer Tesla is manufacturing the robots that put the cars together uh there's probably 20,000 ft of office in that 20,000 ft building and most of the rest of the space is manufacturing now all these have different balances you know there's a ten in in here clear field on the south side of that building that probably has more warehouse space than others but it's all a balance it's Market receptive and these tenants all run their businesses differently you're aware that 610 is a state highway and 169 is the national highway right um what's the purpose well they're not County Roads right and there are no neighborhoods around them sure yeah I guess I recognize that um so to answer your question council member lanterman that these are these are the tenants that we intend to attract to a business partner like this and this is the intent of what I believe um the at least my interpretation of the way the city code reads uh if if we fast forward to the last slide which is I think the Crux of the issue here today it's i' I've typed out um um forward to the there we go the intent of this district is to Pro provide for the the establishment of Campus developments for a variety of office low impact manufacturing or assembly of a variety of products that create no noise glare or fumes uses in this District are limited to those that are compatible with lower intensity residential and business uses which have limited amounts of out gr stage our project has no outside storage our project in my interpretation and I think why we're here is to discuss our interpretation of this is that our project is less intrusive than what the description of that zoning District allows for and then it's in its permitted uses manufacturing and assembly of products office and Warehouse warehousing and storage indoors used in conjunction with offices and manufacturer Laboratories and research facilities and wholesale showrooms now I think based on what we've accomplished in Brooklyn Park in that example and what we are showing on our concept plan is that all of those would comply with what the intent of this code is now I think that's I'll pause and I'll receive feedback and maybe I'll even sit down and allow the conversation to occur amongst the group but I'd love to hear the difference in understanding between this because um for everybody's sake here we've got a zoning code that is very much directed towards the type of uses we propose for we've got a land owner that's attracted us a developer a qualified developer based here in the Twin Cities to develop a product that complies with the code and we're being told not to continue and so we want we'd like to know why we'd like to talk about a plan we'd like to understand if there are things we can massage here and there to to get support because we don't want to just come in and pop something down that you all don't like but uh we're here to talk about the details behind us thank you thanks anyone want to start with some thoughts or questions for applicant or for staff or for the land owners NOP I think it's important to separate what we wish the comp plan said from what the comp plan actually does say so part of what the comp plan says is we have a business park zone we want within the comp plan a certain kind of development to occur inside that zone this isn't the time to change the comp plan we can adjust the zoning code if we feel like there are practical things that would allow us to distinguish between desirable Business Development and undesirable business development but I think we need to be careful in making sure that we respect the Integrity of the comp plan until it's time to make modifications what do you mean by that when we next revise it we have the opportunity to reclassify or ruide land from the way that it's guided now I think that's a very legitimate thing for us to do because when I ran for office I realized we haven't done a very good job of ensuring appropriate transition between intensity in high areas to low areas we have a lot of cases where we have higher int it uses coming right up against low intensity uses and that isn't appropriate and we've put in place things like the buffer yard ordinances to ensure that we get appropriate transitions when those kinds of things are called for within the comp plan um I would love to see more of a defined City Center that gradually steps down in intensity we don't have that and I'm not sure that it's practical to create that even when it is time to change the comp plan but what we should do is figure out if we're going have a business park in this area what requirements need to be en code to ensure that it's the best version of Business Park that we can reasonably expect and so I I kicked around a couple of ideas with Natalie over email around can you have limitations on count of dock truck locations on the building so that you discourage you know lots of shipments coming in and out continuously sounds like this version of the plan might do that absent having a control uh could you have a guideline around how much warehousing space is allocatable within a particular building I don't know if that's really feasible or not it was another way to try to approach something like what the examples were where you have more office more manufacturing so you're you're still moving product in and out but it's not like you're shipping things out continuously you're building for a day you're shipping that day's product on one or two trucks take deliveries a half a dozen times a day that I think can work within the context of a County Road corner with residential areas buffered um as code would require that that's my current perspective opportun particularly like that idea of the warehouse to office ratio and that's something that I've certainly seen elsewhere before that's an intriguing idea I think I could speak I guess um I uh you don't sound like a bad guy you have it's like you're paddling up a river with a stick um these are Warehouse buildings they're not offices all this you know it's like I wore a different tie at the last council meeting but um I was still the same guy and these plans have changed and they haven't really changed that much they look just like warehouses in America we have a lot of small towns being Hoodwink with Promises of jobs and revenue and I'd rather be broke uh and stay principled then have some promise we the unemployment rate in corkran is like zero and so like I keep hearing about all the jobs that this will provide and we're not a employment agency and you can talk to the governor about the jobs um and it's it's frustrating because I've heard I've heard a lot cooperation with neighbors and I haven't heard a single neighbor say they actually want the new version or um and to a certain extent it it it doesn't matter that much cuz you know your neighbors didn't like it when you built your house it's not all about what the neighbors think but there's an expectation of Zoning for offices there's an expectation when it's an it's very specific in my opinion and um that this does not fit in the code and I've talked to the landowner and the land owner has been told by the Builder that it's within code and it's not within code and I don't know how clear more clear that message could be to the Builder that this isn't what we're looking for it's not within code it's not within mile of the code um and you know if we the those those buildings on 610 and 169 belong on interstates M and state highways that are double laned with Clover leaves and this is just going to be in some neighborhood on the inter section of of two County Roads and it's frustrating that you're right about the messages not being received and I'm not sure what I'm not I think you're you're not reading the message of what we're saying and I don't know how much Clear we could be about that this doesn't belong here and it doesn't fit within the code is it specifically the the warehouse component that is um yeah and those those aren't offices like if if we had a you know if we uh if you have a giant building with an office in the corner that is not an office right if you have even um at least two of the buildings that they showed have tons of semi truck loading docks and I think the Tesla one does it but you drive by and it doesn't look like you wouldn't drive by and say hey there's an office Park in America it's a man that that is a manufacturing heavy industry Park not an office Park um and so it's it's very clear to me and I don't like the missed opportunity for the corkran land owners but I think they've been had about somebody thinking they could do something on a piece of property that they can't Dean did you have anything you wanted to say I I'm I'm understanding what everybody's saying I I spoke the last time to a business park and what I thought it would look like and such since then I've read up and and this is kind of what's happening but when I when I read into those documents and stuff it is more warehouse and distribution um like I like I said the the properties over off of Wedgewood and stuff like that those are medical manufacturing um other types of manufacturing and those kind of things and they don't look like three big buildings four big buildings excuse me um you know what what things would uh our planning department do to ensure that docks are limited and these don't turn into distribution centers those kind of things those are all things I'm I'm nervous about um I I've looked at these a lot and I look and and John you've got a good point those big buildings belong next to 169 next to 610 Interstate Clover Leaf entrances those kind of things in that county roads when I drive around and go up 169 you've got a number of those tip up buildings on the West Side Up kind of kitty corner from the corn maze and stuff and and those are all fraged and such with business office spaces but then they are 30t tall 35 ft tall and then warehouse and docks in the back um something like this a a different like out that makes it so it's just not four big buildings is something that I was looking for or was hoping to see there as a business part maybe not quite as segmented off the way I was dreaming and thinking but something like this is there a way to turn it into four u-shaped buildings and and all of the truck traffic and parking is the the parking is around the outside and and those are office um office entrances those kind of things and then the back is more is more the uh pick up and drop off of raw materials and manufactur materials is there a way to change it from four long buildings to four u-shape buildings or or four corners with with the middle open I just something different um I appreciate the the the water feature the mitigation Pond whatever we talk about I appreciate the the the um path has been moved to the south side of that pond and not intruding into the neighborhood to the north and such um something's got to go there and I assume that that Natalie you do you have thoughts on this as far as our our definitions and those kinds of things as far as a business park and such I assume your direction gave them this to bring to us and this is it so what what can be done to get our heads on straight on what the ordinance is and those kind of things if we're that far off I just jumped all over the place I'm sorry if it was easy somebody else be doing it I don't see anybody out there jumping up here so so yeah to be fair the applicant team have been on discussions with staff for a long time yeah and I had multiple meetings with them last year and um while there were conversations early on that a distribution center couldn't go here um they the impression that they had that warehousing to some extent would be appropriate with office in manufacturing light manufacturing did come from staff Direction so just to be careful with how we're saying someone's been duped then that would have been me that duped the property owner and the developer to be clear and to own for that um but that we do say the language that was on the slide is what is in code and it says the intent of this district is to provide for the establishment of Campus developments with a variety of office low impact manufacturing or assembly of a variety of products that create no exterior noise glare or fumes um and uh so I don't think that it was just intended to be an office park there was a carve out specifically saying that the purpose of this District was to also allow for low impact manufacturing and to have a variety of the buildings having office space manufacturing space warehousing space so no it wouldn't be warehousing as the primary use and only use but having some kind of manufacturing component as well how would you describe this as low impact on what basis so um and I to to your point it's relative sure and I and I get that heavy industry we don't allow in the city heavy industry well no that's not true if you drive down Shaka there is significant heavy industry down in Shaka on 169 significant heavy industry that you can smell um there's significant impacts to uh you would not want to live next to it because you can smell the the water treatment plant you can smell the um the paint the plastic yes yeah so when we're talking about something that does not have fume something that can be compatible because it doesn't have an exterior impact in terms of the smell is kind of the most obvious thing um and then glare or fume and tall and has trucks driving in and well the tall the the tallness of the building per our code we allow a maximum principal building height of 45 ft so that is something that we said um when we drafted this ordinance that that would be considered low impact if I could yeah I heard you mention fumes and and and glare a couple of times would it be reasonable to say that the trucks servicing 232 loading docks would perhaps create fumes I mean you can definitely say that Autos in itself will create fumes but that's not what it's talking about it's talking about the low impact load fumes from the manufacturing or assembly process it's not talking about the pollution that comes with transportation of vehicles but you were talking about the smells right yeah but imagine from trucks servicing 232 loading docks it's not 232 loading docks he heard you and brought that down to 80 loading docks so that is a significant load dos total yes that's what he had just had it's 15 that's not in the packet right load submitted a packet yet this isn't a packet yet just a conversation for that I can ask my questions I don't you telling me what I can ask one at a time um in my experience that isn't NE necessarily a massive number for the amount of it's a lot of square footage um the 80 or whatever the 60 to 80 that's I think an improvement from what we had seen initially but it's kind of how many loading docks do office complexes have like when I went into my office today how many loading docks do you think they had at my office with semis I think I saw three or four because You' got a restaurant that's taking delivery uh when I when I was recently there in wetta and and they're not that's not capable of taking a large semi so they actually take those and I saw one pull up last time I was eating at that restaurant on the corner they take the delivery on the street because they don't have a loading dock but they're still taking deliveries yes so we have one at my office which is three stories and uh 15 tenants okay so if I'm looking at an office building and not a warehouse you can count the number of semi- TR traffics traffic that we have determine whether it's an office right I don't know I've spoken my piece about this Mr Mayor just real quick Natalie I didn't mean to put you on the spot I just thank you for for the input back so appreciate it and Mark did you have anything to add I like your thoughts stean on are there different form factors for the layout that might make it integrate better with the area I don't know John you seem a little bit potentially flexible is there a form that you would prefer besides rectangle I think that if we have a problem in in that op office space the the amount of office space available in the Metro is really high and occupation rates are are low and that the solution probably isn't to be flexible on our codes and standards but to be flexible in the zoning and uh have something different there to give the the land over owners a break and wanting to sell the property when we put this in there it was like 8 years ago before or the crash of all office complexes people don't go to work anymore so we got to adapt our code to what the reality is and it's like we have two choices we either have more houses or um a mix of housing like mixed commercial Light commercial and housing or um or warehouses and we just got we have to make a choice and I think I think this is is zoned it might have been zoned properly at the time before Co and people realized they could work at home gotcha mayor if I could make a comment slash question to the point that council member bota just made uh questions regarding appropriate zoning um have have put both the proposed developer and the property owner in a little bit of a pickle that's why we're having the conversation because they they've invested significant time energy money as as we have as a city moving forward trying to develop a plan that that will work for everybody based on decisions that have been made in the past to to your point they called me a long time ago and asked what I thought about this project and I I gave them my thoughts like everyone else who asked me my thoughts on a project and I get one of five votes um it's not our fault that they kept added after reading the room for multiple months um that's why I say to people come in and talk to councel before you go down the route of expensive renderings and putting a bunch of time into it uh I that's that is why we have these preliminary meetings this did not get a warm reception they said it themselves they've made mult they've made small adjustments here we have a warehouse that's Warehouse District that's slightly smaller than it used to be and actually they put the same amount of buildings on smaller amount of space and who knows what's going to happen with that woods and that other Farm that's I mean putting more buildings on less space doesn't make it more attractive um and putting giant buildings with 85 load loading docks on a County Road and that we were loud and clear from the beginning and I don't know why they kept at it it's why like like I said rowing up a river with a stick I I was qu at some point I I wasn't trying to attribute blame in that regard I was trying to point out the the point that you made when the zoning was decided on this the world was a lot different and so I think there's some important conversations that need to happen uh in order to ensure that those desired developments are going forward to meet current operating environment so that that was the point that I was trying to make and I think our current definition of Business Park is is doing the council and the potential clients a disservice and and so uh because there's some specific language in there that the the things that that you're concerned about uh valid concerns especially with the change in the operating environment are are spelled out with a degree of that could be interpreted as specificity you know when it when it identifies warehousing as as something in a business park that that we're saying we're Desiring to attract folks and then when they come in we're telling them that's not what we want our zoning isn't aligned with our our present perception of the operating environment I think it's a bad read when you think office SL warehousing means you have a small office and the rest of the building is Warehouses it's it's not on us in an office part to when you have a building that is going to be almost all open space and warehousing and storage it should have been obvious that a 45 a 45t building is pretty big building that's that's been approved by the by the current definition of the Zone uh I I don't know that your building is is it the three-story one how tall is that one I don't know what you're talking about where you work and what is that I don't know how tall that is I don't know that that's even it's three stor yeah I mean it's built a long time ago I don't know how that all went but it's but I think 45 ft might even exceed the the size of what's got 15 users these are warehouses right yeah I think to me it'd be important to it's hard to say when it's so kind of ambiguous in terms of what these tenants might actually be if approved because you don't really know what that breakdown of office and warehouse is I think the potential for the problem to come up like you're saying is certainly there um we just don't know really what are what are parameters like to your point I mean what are the parameters around it if it's an office part is there a and what happens if they this all of a sudden becomes a warehouse you shut it down we'll be in courts for 10 years trying to figure it out it's if we so sorry um just to be clear when a new use comes in so the if we do a speculative building and then as a user comes in as guaranteed there is a site plan process for anything that's a permitted use that isn't a single family home so there is a site plan process to ensure that that if we put something in code in terms of a certain percentage a certain ratio we would have an opportunity to do that so yes if someone goes in without doing the site plan process then that would be a reason to shut it down we've had we've had people in our town in court for 10 years that have semi trucks on their front front yard so who's the say there's there there when a city approves something when things go pair shape the recourse is extend extend it's extensive and long and uh this project lends it I mean on face value it's um it's I don't think it's going to end up what what we want in that area either and it's another thing like these things get it's also one of the things that happens nationally is a city will get promised something and all of a sudden they Flex all of a sudden it isn't what it was promised and you're left with no recourse because we're a town we don't have a huge budget to fight lawsuits against you know I don't know thank what you're saying couple miscellaneous things that I just wanted to ask about um mentioned a few times I don't know if this just in the previous um narrative or if it's kind of still being discussed about the plan would lead me to believe it's still kind of the same understanding by the uh applicant that it's mentioned several times about the new infrastructure with 610 um kind of unlocking this and I just want to be clear that as of now there isn't additional infrastructure in corkran on the 610 project so it would just be going to where it's going to connect on the kind of maple gr por on sign side and then we're hoping that we'll get some some of that addressed in the future but certainly far from a done deal in terms of getting a what you know anything more improved than what the current Cony Road 30 is so I'd want to make sure that anything that could go there or does go there is aware of that and is building with that in mind that that's what you'd be accessing on to not necessarily an improved uh to the level of 610 understood and by infrastructure can you we got people online understood and by infrastructure I had meant the road itself gotcha so Highway 610 entering in you know just right to the county road here so okay thank you anything else i' I'd love to have a conversation more of a conversation related to what do we want to see mhm instead of this isn't what we want to see I I I want to come out of this with something for not only them but the land owners and the Planning Group we're we're sending a different message guys I I'm I'm I'm saying that Oho this isn't what we want what do we want I've given examples of Wedgewood of Opus the Opus complex down in Hopkins those kind of that's business part to me I agree with your characterizations I think both of those they're a little dated but be happy to see the temporary version of that in Cork I i' I'd love to see something more that complements what's going to be going in across the street to Medical buildings Apartments um Villas tow houses those kind of things something that complements that not four large barns p that's what I see there in this on a farm nothing wrong with that I just I I that's the stuff I'm saying and I'd rather come out of this conversation without just slamming the door on somebody when it's sounds like the application or or what is wanting to go in here is something that is defined I I I don't like the looks of those four building it's nice that they're smaller it's nice that we can put implications or or restrictions in there so many docks per square foot those kind of things um I'm seeing them and I haven't had a conversation individually with the developer and stuff but I see 10,000 20,000 Square fot broken out individual businesses in there in the front being Offices Medical manufacturing or Manufacturing is a percentage and then we keep saying warehouse but it's not a warehouse it is a supply station a stores for what's being manufactured there we we aren't I don't think they're talking about a FedEx and Amazon none of those things that has been said in these pre meetings previously it is trying to get a something out there to Market and something out there that will help people that do go to work instead of work from home um I know a lot of companies that are pulling everybody back they're they're they're seeing inefficiencies and stuff from people working at home and unsuccessful um events and such are happening and everybody's got to get back together it was a pandemic that's over let's let's get back to normal if we if we at all possible that's what I'm saying and I'd rather see something good come out of this meeting than just us just saying nope not what we want but we don't share what we want I could get on board with something like you you were talking Dean there was some of the more broken up buildings um as opposed to you know the four Big Blocks to kind of create some variety and and some space for different types of offices different types of businesses to go in there um as opposed to kind of what we're seeing here I I'd be more open to something like that my my conversation when I was when I started on 169 there's there's those uh tip up buildings on the West Side north of like I said where the intersection where the the corn maze used to be I think that's almost done now but those have got um oh my gosh one is a door company one is an appliance group one is I mean Park is that is that where you're talking Brooklyn Park or Champlain I think I'm more Champlin park it was one of the last things remaining in Brooklyn Park before it got fully developed so if we're I think we're talking about just north of that and West and I haven't been up there for a while what's in the4 it's 114 and 169 so I I'm just saying and that's that's the stuff I'm talking about is uh a garer company an appliance company um those kind of things and yes there's deliveries and Pickups I I when you look at Wedgewood there's still medical device companies in there manufacturing life-saving stuff and they have a warehouse in the back where supplies and everything it takes to manufacture those medical devices are delivered and then manufactured and turned out obviously they have to ship them to to um hospitals medical you know whatever it takes to get them to the patient and such that's the kind of Warehouse is there new words for that not necessarily warehouse thank you well I would say that help me please I'm trying to help I would yeah and thank you I so so I just wanted to pull this up real quick I sorry to interrupt but the what you're talking about this is what it looks like from a bird's eye view y so I think this is where we're struggling it's like it is all about what it looks like from the street view which we don't have yet but as far as the bird's ey view this this is what a business park would look like so I think it's just something to keep in mind is that I think really what you're what what the concern is really what the architecture is going to look like which we can work through we have controls in place to really control that um so I think as far as what you're going anything you're going to see that comes in as a business perk is going to look like four rectangles thank you for pulling that up I'm not a fan of the way the tip ups look I'd like more character and we've talked about that you we we talked about the stuff that's happening to their neighbor Maple Grove and and everything they've got going on in the facades and the fake windows and everything else in some of those tall buildings and stuff I know that stuff we're going to talk about and work on it just i' I'd rather see it a little bit more rural instead of this I John said it I think the best those big four big buildings belong close to an interstate and an intersection that is Cloverleaf and and such and the access they get off the main road and they're it's a mile mile and a half before they get to their destination through a very rural area that can change a lot over the next few years and such where this to the to the south of this I think it's still some rural egg farms and stuff but it's right on the interstate or right on 169 if I remember right and it's on two County Roads there was the direct access and then it has 169 similar to he'll be on two count but it's way closer to yeah and I think that's part the reason why we identified this area is because we knew 610 was coming in and that this would be an area that can support industry because we don't have a lot of area in the city that can so I um I don't I don't know how to get around that so I think that's where um if the discussion at this point is we don't want this as business park we need then I think at this point we need to identify that we are intending as a city to rezone this property so that the property owners know how to proceed because at this point everything I'm hearing is that we don't want this to be a business park and so I don't I don't know how to why is that why is why are you saying everything you're hearing is we don't want this to because what you're saying is you want it to be office space and only office space you don't want any Ware housing no we're saying this isn't a business isn't an office Park know you brought a you brought up a great example something that's probably been hanging out up there probably 25 30 years in the way it used to be I can argue is that what we want now not so much but we can we can make it look nice and I'd like it more than just putting lipstick on a pig i' I'd really like it to just to be clear I'm saying this doesn't fit our zoning and potentially we need to rezone if um if there's not a big market for office space so that's different than what you're saying I the least say in the matter here but that is business park in nearly every community in the Twin Cities good for them it's not here pretty clear to me I'm not saying that what my opinion matters here but I'm saying that is business half the building is semi- Tru boting docks and and the subject site is not zoned Office Park so we keep saying Office Park it's never it's not Office Park it's not zoned Office Park we can read it again it says warehousing and Manufacturing it's not Office Park it does not say warehousing and what you're saying don't it has a use for that it it nowhere in it doesn't say that office space is required nowhere in there doesn't say that it does say that the uh it does say offices are permitted use and it does say warehousing and officing can be a combined use but it doesn't say that it has to be predominantly office over warehousing and then I would say too I think we're kind of confusing things if we're talking about warehousing as where something's stored um i' I've I know I I've toured manufacturing facilities a lot of the warehousing in the manufacturing space is pretty much the same area so to I think that's another thing to keep in mind is we can if we're talking about just the storage area or if we're talking about the manufacturing area as well because that would play into the ratios so anyway sorry that was one clarification I want to make sure we're pointing out is that W the manufacturing area pretty much bleeds into the warehousing area that is true thank you and I would say the Wedgewood property that keeps being brought up I think you know this is a modern version of what that was when that was constructed this is you know buildings that are 100 to 150,000 ft that have a blend of uses within them are the modernday Wedgewood of 2000 and um there hasn't been a flex office building your question of what those are called those you're giving me new terminology thank you for helping me there hasn't been a flex office building developed in the Twin Cities probably since the early 2000s and so these buildings can be demised and flexible for groups that have higher office counts for groups that have higher manufacturing accounts and and there is flexibility to it and the the part that I think the crucial distinction of what council member botma is saying is that he doesn't believe that the the zoning code allows for what we're proposing but what I'm hearing is that nearly the rest of the room does and that's why I'm still here do you really hear that you really hear that's what a couple of the council members you're hearing that our what you're trying to do that's what the staff well we I've told you multiple times I'm one of five votes we get to we get to vote and are you do you think that fits the code no I'm somewhere I think in between you and Jeremy here and do you think it fits the code no do you think it fits the code I'm deferring to the our Planning Group and what they're defining so yes I it fits the code I just not a fan of the four big building I guess he's saying somewhere like your use fits the code but your actual project doesn't fit the code so you're hearing that I'm the only one that is against it but I hear four people say they're not in favor of your your project and your project doesn't fit the Cod Mark yeah if I could I just don't think that it's the role of city council to design their project for them I think that's that's for them to do and to bring it forth and then we vote um on that project talking about changing rectangular buildings into into curved buildings I don't think that that is our role nor should it be our role that's the role of the of the property designer so I I would say at this point I just I need to understand how to proceed because right now the way our quot is written this is something that could come in tomorrow and we would need to approve it if there was no variances requested so that's not true Natalie yes it is we approve it as Council you can recommend that it gets appr permitted use and it fits the standards we're saying it doesn't without a very we have to sort that out yeah four of us say it doesn't and we get the votes so you might recommend that it gets passed but we don't have to pass something because you recomend don't know how to tell them I don't know how to tell anyone how to come in under the standard so if we don't like the business park district as it's written right now we either need to change the district or reone the property what I'm asking for I'm asking for guidance on how proper owner to move we might need to clarify you can't have because we dis disagree on the reading of it and and that I'm firm in my reading of it if I could I think I think that's a key um I've got that you that I think that's a key point that you bring up council member bottom is that there's because there's a disagreement on it um I would defer and I I don't have our attorney here uh in in order to get his interpretation but at the very least I think we can agree that there isn't Clarity to the point that everybody agrees on what it communicates and that's problematic and so it's beneficial for us in order to define the terms and expectations so everybody has a similar understanding and and that's probably some work that we need to do in order to provide that to the property owners and and to any potential future developers and the current developer uh I absolutely agree with you that there's not agreement and it should be very clear so that all the council members have the same interpretation and staff are aligned with that understanding so we can communicate to property owners and developers clearly and we currently can't do that so we need some help with that could you bring the code back up I will thank you so I'm hearing a tension between the use within the facility and the look of the facility my reading of code is is intended to allow manufacturing and assembly which means there has to be material brought to the site you can't assemble nothing and end up with something so by virtue of the kinds of businesses that this is intended to allow there will be a warehouse element to the use unless we want to not allow manufacturing but that puts us into the problem that John highlighted earlier where pure office is not in demand what's in demand is places where people have to come together to make something physical currently maybe that'll change at some point but there appears to be a market for that now so if we can agree on the premise that the code allows material to come into the site there's going to be some mechanism for doing that whether it's kids walking up with red rider wagons or dock trucks how many we can control we've talked about it's a possibility to have requirements we put in place on the project or within code to ensure we keep that at a reasonable number what I'm hearing a lot of is we don't like the look of the building and I understand the basis for that that's more of an architectural standard that I think we could try to design what we would expect a business park to include maybe that means shorter walls maybe it means more than four sides we could talk through what concepts might work there um but unless we want to convert this to housing which I wouldn't support given what we're going to talk about in the finance review and the poll meeting um I think we need to clarify the interpretations that we have here and figure out what will Square the circle of appearance versus use I I agree that's kind of what Jay was saying I I agree that's something we need to do absolutely um in terms of feedback to the developer I don't know how that how much that helps right now but it's certainly the something we need to do sooner than later um I'd be happy to offer some ideas too I mean there have been some that have been brought up and the reason that I'm here is because our team our legal team believes in full force that this complies so when I'm here I'm here to be talking about is there a maximum number of doctors that we can place on these buildings is there a maximum height of these buildings that we can agree to to soften I mean these aren't 40 proposed 45 ft what are they proposed they're probably 32 clear 36 to 37 um to the parit um is one thing I've done in other communities is we have talked about an agreed pre-agreed upon balance of office warehouse and Manufacturing within the buildings um we have to make sure that that's Market receptive but there is a certain extent that we could be comfortable with in agreeing to that um those are examples of negotiations I've had in other communities in in these sorts of conversations it's been doctors height of building and what what goes on inside the building have have you done any uh what council member lanterman described was like petite building so to take this large building and change it into to one large building to four smaller buildings so it's more aesthetically pleasing unless so the small have you done that the smallest building that United properties has developed in recent years is 96,000 Square ft because anything below that the economy is a scale just don't just don't work if to clarify you said 85 truck docks right do I have that number correct roughly sure yes roughly would the truck servicing those truck docks create either noise glare or fumes so those items are studied in our environmental review which is what our next step in this process would be okay but do trucks generally create noise glare and fumes um that just yes or no I mean this isn't a litigation here but you brought up your legal team so I want to make sure sure that I understand yes we feel very confident in the basis and the reason why I'm here tonight okay but that's why I'm confused do trucks at service 885 truck docks would those trucks create noise glare or fumes not beyond the legal levels in Minnesota just but that's not what the code says this is so do they would the it's just a yes or no would those those trucks create noise glare or fumes yes or no not associated with low impact manufacturing it's just yes or no are the trucks servicing 85 truck docks will those trucks create noise glare or fumes yes or no I think it's how you look at the project he's trying to create so you don't want to answer I've tried sir it's just a yes or no this is pretty difficult to stand up here in front of you know to be treated like that the way that you have from the moment I'm asking you a question 85 trucks do they create noise glare or fumes yes or no vehicles cars you know yes this is life you know these buildings are these buildings are the heart and soul of the manufacturing base in the United States they produced the GDP that we all are you know here that you know the United States needs this is this is really straightforward guys this is business park product we can talk about some of the restrictions and be professional about it please but you say like to talk about you say straightforward but you won't say yes or no Conor you want to finish I get out of here you know your Mustang emits M Conor if you wanted to finish can I can't I really can't you guys obviously do not want in I think next steps should be reviewing with names some of the uh definitional items and making sure that so so my Council uh my my question for Council would be would you want to do that as a work session or would you want to do that as a scheduled discussion I'm open to you uh I think it might be more beneficial for us to do it as a schedule discussion I'd rather yes so I I will look at the schedule and and uh come up with a proposal I don't want to have at at this moment uh because I need to talk Ure I understand what Mr Thames is available and then depending on that I would keep in mind the those three areas that and and maybe we look up try to come up with some other ideas for so to confirm the three areas I've got doc Door maxity Max and then ratios ratio and I I think I could are there any other things you'd like me to make sure that we touch on as staff prepares for that not off the top my what's the list uh currently uh what was discussed was uh would there be a maximum number of dock doors on any type of proposal in the business park is it is there a uh doc dock doors per like square feet it's got to be kind of a relative okay so per square feet or you know per some Metric we're just thinking alloud here so so we can I I don't know what metrics would be the standard for the industry so we could look at what other have there been other precedents set to look at some of these we don't have to be afraid to have a higher standard or a different standard here but we can look at um I'd be you know if if not I'd be willing to look at an a building an office manufacturing building with less loading docks one of the buildings actually doesn't have that many loading docks that they showed us if you look at from the sky so there is one that I all of the same no I I don't I didn't see it but I'm open to being wrong about it I I think it would be helpful too is if there are precedents that uh Council gravitates towards so that staff can do some research on what are the parameters of those precedence that you go Yep this is something that we want to see in the community wherever it might be that would be helpful this is this is the S you know if if you could provide me that feedback so I can get it to staff that would be really helpful so we ensure that we're making the best use of our time in terms of refining council's desire what I've seen work well when I worked in a company that serve Pharma they wanted to have segregated arrival and departure so you wouldn't have the same material going in and out of the same door and so it was important to have multiple entry points intuitively to me it would make sense to allow at least two per Bay and if you have a large vendor who's going to take up you know three Bays they could potentially have more than two obviously um I would see that as being very acceptable I I I would suggest that we limit the amount of staff time that goes into these projects until there's some sort of feel about what the council might think about it it's it's obvious that staff differs from our opinion on this and you guys have a lot of invested time and effort into that and um I feel like we're disrespecting that a little bit um so it was be I I we've had a couple of them that have went way down the road and the council has said has reeled them back and I think it would be helpful to have check-ins and if the especially the napkin stuff like where somebody says I'm thinking of doing this what do you guys think and if there's not like a positive um opinion about it like have more like read the room and check in uh about where we might think because they're this they're four designs into this and we're still in the kind of the same spot we were at the first design I think at the heart of the challenge uh another point of the discussion when we come back is we really need to visit revisit and clarify council's desires for permitted uses in business Parks uh CU that's really I think at the heart of this discussion is the interpretation and understanding of permitted uses so for us to get a very clear understanding whether that's through ratios of office to warehouse space or those other types of things so then staff can provide feedback to interested parties that aligns with Council desires right right now they have been moving in a direction that they feel like they've been doing that and so uh B based on the decisions and the feedack that Council was made previously in terms of defining the code with permitted uses but there's clearly a a difference in understanding of what those Clarity on the permitted uses are and so getting a little bit more granular maybe uh whether that's through ratios or eliminating permitted uses adding permitted uses that maybe haven't been considered uh I think that that could be really helpful for staff to provide that kind of feedback so we're only bringing those things forward we're not wasting developers time we're not wasting your time uh because time is money I think this is the fourth round of giving the same feedback I don't know you know right but I think Jay is trying to say what we could do to potentially get it a step forward yeah I I think Clarity would be Clarity is always helpful I also don't yeah we want to be sort of a little bit less specific to have to be open to creativity you know and we don't want to design everything from a council level so I'm I just want to be you try to design a code with some variation for flexibility what yeah I think this one needs a little more uh needs to be flushed out a little bit more just if there's some particular desires with the lone Business Park in the community we we probably should have some specific to it so we have 15 minutes left can't course correct now but I just want to give a self assessment I I don't think we did well in this meeting I don't think we got into enough of the Tactical policymaking elements to help shape the next Direction and while it's maybe satisfying to vent some spleen when you're frustrated we can't continue to conduct ourselves this way when we're trying to set code thanks Mom you're welcome Mark guys come on it's not helpful okay is there anything else yeah if I can say Natalie thank you I've been sitting here staring at the ordinance and stuff and right now just a definition of permitted uses you know John you talk about creativity those kind of things I'm counting 18 different possibilities from Banks and savings of loans to office warehouse to everything else there's like six there and then individual ones here it's it's uh I can understand what's happened so far some of some of I mean it's important in the code that it says variety and it also says um yeah when you when you look at limited amount developments will provide a number of amenities including architectural controls landscaping and I mean I I I guess I didn't whatever I didn't see any of that well and that's why but there's obviously there's a difference like to me it's clear but it's not to everybody so we do need Clarity is important for sure that Mak sense y that's helpful okay think you feel St do we have enough I have enough for now yes good job um okay with that I will entertain a motion to adjourn the work session so move second all those in favor say I I I