Review Oppidan Concept Plans

The purpose of this case is to review a request to review two concept plans for the 43.55 acre property north of Bunker Lake Blvd NW between Puma Street NW and Armstrong Blvd NW with the PID 20-32-25-43-0005 (the "Subject Property"). The Applicant, Oppidan Investment Company, is looking for for feedback from the City on the two concept plans.

No notification required for this step.

Summary
Both concept plans appear to meet all of the bulk standards of the E-3 District. Both concept plans should work on the Subject Property from a technical perspective. Staff has flagged a few items below related to each concept plan and is asking for the Planning Commission to weigh in on additional items to note prior to developing full plans, and if there is a preference from the Planning Commission.

2 Building Concept Assessment

• Outdoor Storage - According to the prospect, outdoor storage is a non-negotiable item needed for the proposed user of the western building in this concept plan. Outdoor storage is allowed in the E-3 District with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Page 9 of the attached document shows an example of some of the proposed outdoor storage, such as pallets. The outdoor storage is between two buildings, so the buildings screen the storage on the west and the east. That being said, for fairness, equity and consistency, some permanent on site screening should be a requirement of this parcel. Staff doesn't object to the outside storage, but feel it is important to provide on site screening.
  • The storage area will be further screened by the large expanse and wetland on the north screens that area of the property and provides a large buffer. The southern area of the property is likely the most "seen" area and is what Staff has focused on for outdoor storage screening. The Applicant has proposed having the entrance to the site veer to the right after entering the site. This allows for additional landscaping along the southern edge, as well as the parking island by the building to help screen the area as well. Screening along the eastern side of the building should still be required, but to a lesser degree. Staff is appreciative of the conscious effort to help screen the trailers and outdoor storage area. The Planning Commission would weigh in on if additional screening is needed. Options Staff has considered are:
    • Fencing - Fencing is a typical solution for outdoor storage. Typically, Staff recommends fencing with some sort of screening, whether that be slats or an opaque cover on the fencing. This is an option in this area, but may not be the most efficient or be necessary based on the site layout.
    • Wing Wall - Wing walls are typically seen to help screen things from adjacent views, and are typically used in Ramsey to help screen dumpsters. A wing wall could be added to the south side of this property, jutting off the edge of the building, matching the architecture of the building. This would give the illusion that the building extends when viewing from Bunker Lake Blvd NW, but would allow more flexibility internal to the site. Staff would be supportive of this alternative.
• Architecture - The proposed architecture of the site is similar to what is seen on the south side of Bunker Lake Blvd in Bunker Lake Industrial Park (BLIP). The building is pre-cast concrete with colored panels to add some visual interest. The entrance to the site is on the west side of the building. Staff appreciates the architectural interest added to the western side of the building and recommends some slight modifications to the southern side of the building as well (options include windows, articulation, colored panels, etc.).
• Layout - As noted above, the entrance to the site is on the west, with storage and trailers on the east and room for expansion on the north. Truck and trailer storage is not possible on the north side of the building with the internal layout the user requires. The Applicant has provided landscaping next to the building as well as around the site, and some outdoor seating for employees. Staff is supportive of the landscaping and outdoor seating and appreciates the addition of these items. The proposed layout appears to meet standards and Staff does not have any recommendations to change the layout.

Policy Question: Does the Planning Commission agree with Staff's assessment of the concept plan? Are there additional items the Planning Commission would like to see included in a formal submittal?

3 Building Concept Assessment

• Outdoor Storage - As noted above, outdoor storage is a key component of many industrial users' operations. Outdoor storage requires a CUP in this district. If outdoor storage is required for this concept, Staff would be open to fencing or a wing wall as noted above if outdoor storage is required in this concept plan.
• Architecture - The proposed architecture for this building is more of a traditional industrial building, with some articulation and architectural features near the entrance to the building. Staff recommends that the Applicant focus architectural features on the perimeter walls of the site, such as the western wall of the western most building, the eastern wall of the eastern most building, and the southern walls of all 3 buildings.
• Layout - The layout for this site appears to function and work for the site. Staff does not see any items that need immediate change. The three building concept also includes veering of the entrance of the site, which allows for some additional landscaping and parking islands to screen the parking areas between buildings.

Policy Question: Does the Planning Commission agree with Staff's assessment of the concept plan? Are there additional items the Planning Commission would like to see included in a formal submittal?

Next Steps
The Planning Commission should provide feedback on both concept plans and note any red flags on the concept plans. The Planning Commission should recommend that the Applicant move forward with site plan and plat applications that include Staff's comments and the Planning Commission's recommendation.

Policy Question: Does the Planning Commission have a preferred concept?

Staff is handling this update as part of regular duties.

Staff recommends that the Applicant move forward with a formal application revised to include Staff's comments and comments from the Planning Commission.

No formal action required. The Planning Commission should recommend that the Applicant move forward/not move forward with a formal application for site plan and plat approval.