CCP 07-24-2007 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

WIapplicant is requesting approval of the following land use applications to allow development of a 6,858 s.f. ti-tenant retail building that would include the retail operations of the New Brighton Post Office: Special Use Permit: Means to amend a General Development Plan (required per B-4 zoning), Planned Unit Development: This is technically an amendment to the previously approved PUD for Main Street Village, and a Site Plan: Required for all commercial/industrial development and issuance of a building permit. This proposal outlines development parameters of the last remaining lot within the Main Street Village redevelopment area. "Phis proposal includes construction of a 6,858 s.f. building that would be utilized for retail and/or office uses, construction of an additional trash enclosure, relocation of the north/south sidewalk along 5"' Avenue NW, landscape planter areas, a monument sign along 5th Avenue NW, wall signs, and a one-way (to the north) drive aisle for mail drop off. The proposal does not include any additional parking as all required parking for the entire Main Street Village development has been previously constructed. Schiferl stated that he has requested adequate recycling and does not see it on the plans. John Ordway, Pratt Ordway Developers, replied that the enclosure is large enough to house recycling, as well as trash containers. He added that the entire development recycles and all the enclosures are built large enough to house two containers. One container is for trash and the other is for paper products. The trash company handles the recycling of can and containers which sort out the recyclable goods from the trash. Melody rrankie and Becky Try, on the Association Board for Main Street Village Condo's, stated they are concerned about the increase of noise from the development, the view of the post office and they are concerned that the walk able area in the development will be taken away with the moving of the side walk. They added at 6 the area is dangerous to walk since people speed through out the development; they are also concerned that wanted mail will be left in the parking lots, and they have not seen a separate recycling company picking up the recycling for the development. There is an also a concern about resale of the homes if the post office is put into the area. Yena Cheski, 553 5th Ave NW, is concerned about the size of the building and the increase of traffic to the area. She is also concerned about the increase of potential trash from unwanted mail. She added that she also likes the green space and would like the area left. Andrew Hurry, 557 5th Ave NW, is questioning why a new building is required when there are open retail spaces with in the development and at the corner of County Rd E2 and Old Hwy. 8. He added that he would like to have the green space left as it is. Baker asked what size building was originally proposed for the site. Gundlach replied that a building of this size has always been anticipated. Mann asked if this was just the retail walk up only. Gundlach replied that was correct, it would be the Post Office's retail operations only. Ordway stated that originally the Post Office required a 5,400 square foot building and over the years it has shrunk to 2.400 square feet. A building that size is not economically feasible and thus the extra spaces have been added for additional tenants. He added that the Post Office and a good retail tenant would increase property values and improve the area. While there will be more traffic, if there is speeding they will consider putting in speed bumps to help control traffic. Zisla asked how much closer to 5th Street was the original ilding. Ordway replied it was close to the two existing buildings, but set back slightly. Ochiferl asked where the additional traffic for the Post Office fits into the analysis. Gundlach replied that she did not address the traffic concerns, since it was addressed under the original PUD. She added that the traffic Page 7 of 9