2011_0613_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Thomas, Pas,chke From: Th�om�as Pasch I've Sent: We �dn�e�sday, June 01, 2011 3�:08 PM To: Tammy McGehee Cc: *RVPI�an�n�iin Com�m�iissiion ; Pat Truedge�on� Subject: Affiin�iity Pl�uis Federal Cre�diit Una iion Conditional Use Thank you for the comments and I will forward these concerns to the Planning Commission. However, the placement of the Affinity Plus Federal Credit Union is not under consideration. The only item before the Planning Commission is whether the proposed drive-through on the north side of the building meets the criteria to recommend approval of the requested Conditional Use. Since you provide comments from a resident familiar with development, that you share/support as well, I felt it necessary to address those points listed in your email. To begin, the two story financial/ office building is a permitted use within the Community Business District. Permitted uses are allowed by right and upon achieving all requirements of the Zoning ordinance, the Planning Division is obligated to approve the building permit. I would like to note however, that building placement is not a fairness issue, but again a Code requirement that 1, nor the Planning Commission, can change as a component of this specific request. Specifically as it relates to building placement, the Community Business District requires 30% of buildings adjacent primary streets to be placed within 25 feet of the front property line. Regarding the notion or opinion that havinLy a buildinLy forward on this site would create a traffic hazard is C:Y C:Y hard for me to support. The proposed Affinity building would be constructed approximately 20 feet from the property line and the roadway lies an additional 15 feet west of the property line. This leaves an area of approximately 35 feet of boulevard and front yard area that would remain open and free of obstructions so that vehicles traveling north or south would be able to view the vehicles exitinLy the drive-through and the C:Y site at the southerly shared access. It was also noted that there may be a value lost if the Affinity is constructed to meet the City Code requirements because it blocks the view of adjacent buildings. Not that I want to bring up the old code, but it would have afforded a redevelopment the ability to place a buildinLy that potentially would block the C:Y existing view-shed along the frontage road. In the case of the existing situation, you are correct that the proposed location is a substantial change from what was on the site and would partially hide the existing 4-story office building to the north and the former Fuddruckers and other properties to the south as one travels along the frontage road. However, most of these tenants rely on signage and not people being able to see their buildings, especially since one has to get to the frontage road to travel south or north to their destination of choice. The Code allows parking in the front of buildings within the Community Business Districts, but it does not require that parking be in front. The Affinity proposal has designed a site that places all parking at the rear, which is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan policies and creates a safer pedestrian/ bicycle connection opportunity form the sidewalk/street to the building as shown on the plans. I would disagree that the MGM in Saint Paul has unintended consequences. If traffic is traveling at the posted speeds and drivers are paying attention to the road, traffic should flow smoothly and not create challenging or safety issues. However, accidents are mostly caused by not following the rules of the road and/or paying attention.