05-8-13-PC - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

ARDEN HILLS PLANNING COMMISSION – APRIL 3, 2013 3 south side of the site also creates an alternative route for people exiting the development to avoid the Red Fox/Lexington stop light. Staff feels that additional traffic analysis is necessary, and would encourage Ramsey County to take a broader look at the corridor to determine if a second stop light that serves Target and this redevelopment is warranted. A second stop light would have the added benefit to existing employees and customers of businesses in the Red Fox/Grey Fox industrial area as an additional alternative for turning left onto Lexington Avenue. City Planner Meagan Beekman stated as a standalone development Phase I, and the orientation of the building away from Lexington Avenue, seems counter-intuitive; however, as a Master PUD that includes the two parcels to the east and south the project as a whole creates better internal traffic circulation for the area and works well. The applicant would be requesting flexibility from the Zoning Code to construct the building 20 feet from the Lexington Avenue right of way, when the Code requires a 50 foot setback. Staff is generally supportive of this flexibility because moving the building towards Lexington allows driveways that are close to the Red Fox/Lexington intersection to be closed and pushes traffic circulation away from the intersection, improving access. In addition, the Ramsey County right of way in front of this property is unusually wide. There are 60 feet between the property line and the road in front of the Blue Fox property, whereas there are only 15 feet between the road and the property line on the other side of the street. The width of the right of way on the Arden Hills side of the street pushes buildings back farther from t he road than is required on the Shoreview side of the street. This inconsistency makes it difficult for retail businesses, which rely heavily on visibility from the road for their success, and becomes a detent to redevelopment. The large expanse of grass is not as visually interesting as a more dynamic landscaped area that includes a multitude of plantings. Staff has concerns about wrapping the drive-up window aisle around the Lexington Avenue side of the building, and would prefer a less prominent location; however, the grade drops approximately three feet from Lexington Avenue, and the inclusion of the retaining wall may sufficiently screen the drive-up window from Lexington Avenue. Staff would like to see additional landscaping to screen what would be the rear of the building, and architectural elements that create visual interest from Lexington Avenue. Furthermore, Staff has requested a more pronounced internal sidewalk system and more linkages to an external sidewalk system. City Planner Meagan Beekman continued the front elevation, which would face west, appears to comply with the City’s design standards for the B-2 and B-3 Zoning Districts. The rear, or Lexington Avenue, side of the building would have minimal transparent glass; however, Staff recommends that the end caps of the building and the center bay offer enhanced architectural elements, including transparent glass to add height and interest to the building. Staff would also recommend expanding the outdoor seating areas, enhancing the outdoor experience with additional landscaping, particularly on the Lexington Avenue side of the building; and including a more prominent visual focal point at the Red Fox/Lexington Avenue intersection. The County does not allow commercial signage to be located in their rights of ways; however, they have indicated that landscaping would be permitted. She noted there is a three foot grade change.