MANKATO — A new Starbucks near Mankato’s regional hospital failed to receive City Council approval Monday night as residents and council members expressed opposition to replacing homes with a drive-thru-focused coffee business and worried about bringing more traffic to an already busy area.
The new Starbucks is proposed at Madison Avenue and Dane Street, replacing an insurance agency on the corner and three homes along Dane. The development would be the latest in a longstanding transformation of the area near the hospital from a residential neighborhood to more intensive uses, but the council tabled the project when it became clear that majority support was absent.
Although dozens of critical comments have been written online in reaction to Free Press stories about the project, Cassandra and William Bowser of 865 Madison Avenue were among the first to show up at a council meeting to fight it.
“I don’t want a Starbucks for a neighbor. I don’t know anybody who does,” said Cassandra Bowser of 865 Madison Avenue. “I just don’t think we need another Starbucks. … The biggest drive-thru in Mankato will be my neighbor.”
William Bowser noted that the project design is not aimed at creating a neighborhood gathering spot. The business plan is focused almost entirely on customers in vehicles with a drive-thru capable of holding as many as 19 cars and a building that won’t have a single table.
“This is going to be a Starbucks I can’t even go to,” he said.
Council member Kevin Mettler was more concerned about the volume of traffic the Starbucks might attract, saying he had spent time watching the intersection of Madison and Dane and worries that it will increase crashes and vehicle back-ups on Madison.
“I think it’s going to be a dangerous intersection,” Mettler said. “I think (the project) makes it more dangerous.”
Council member Jessica Hatanpa said she isn’t opposed to redevelopment of the corner but doesn’t want to see housing demolished and heard from Mankatoans who, for environmental reasons, don’t want nearly 20 cars idling in a drive-thru line.
“I’m just not sure it’s the best use of the property to tear down homes to make a Starbucks drive-thru,” Hatanpa said.
The project requires council approval of a rezoning of some of the property from low-density residential to “community business district,” a conditional use permit for the drive-thru and a certificate of design compliance for the building’s aesthetics. But when Council President Mike Laven made a motion to approve all three, none of the other members offered to second the motion.
That killed the attempt to approve the project. But no one on the council made a motion to deny the rezoning and other approvals.
Laven warned that the city could be successfully sued by the developer if the council denies the developer’s requests without justification.
“We put ourselves in the position that we have to be very clear why we’re going to deny it,” he said.
Members of the Planning Commission and city staff found that the proposal by developer Van Tol Properties was in sync with city rules and regulations. The proposed council resolution supported by Laven stated that the project “is in the best interest and promotes the health and welfare of the community, and is in conformity with the comprehensive plan of and for the City.”
After some discussion, City Manager Susan Arntz said she was hearing concerns about both vehicular traffic issues and pedestrian safety. Hatanpa added that she disagreed with the findings of the staff and the Planning Commission that “the proposal does not interfere with or diminish the use of property in the immediate vicinity” and that it “will not jeopardize the public’s health, safety, or general welfare.”
The drive-thru is projected to serve an average of 900 vehicles a day, although a traffic consultant hired by the developer anticipates that as many as half of those vehicles would have been passing by anyway on their way to the hospital, Bethany Lutheran College or other nearby destinations.
The size of the drive-thru was expanded to address any worries that traffic will back up on Dane, which is where the entrance to the business will be located. Negotiations with city staff also resulted in the developer agreeing to the extension of a left-turn lane farther to the south along Dane Street for northbound traffic looking to enter the property. And there was to be a flashing-light system installed to warn drivers about the possibility of pedestrians at times when pedestrians might be headed to or from neighborhood elementary schools.
Laven, calling himself “a little embarrassed” by the council’s performance Monday night, criticized fellow council members for waiting so late in the process to object to the project, saying they could have objected in September when they forwarded the item to the Planning Commission for review.
“My god, it absolutely changes your neighborhood,” Laven said. “That was a no-brainer in September. Nobody thought it mattered at that point.”
Mayor Najwa Massad expressed her disappointment that citizens — who were no-shows at the Planning Commission, other than one letter of opposition — didn’t get involved sooner. But she also appeared to be disappointed, without naming anyone specifically, that a council member showed disdain for colleagues’ opinions by “rolling our eyes or making comments under our breath.”
Ultimately, the council voted to table the matter until Dec. 11. At that point, opponents will need to list “findings” for why the project doesn’t conform to city plans and municipal regulations. Or a majority will need to vote to approve the project. And in the case of the rezoning, it will take a super-majority of five votes on the seven-member council.
With two members who seem firmly opposed, and only Laven and Massad expressing willingness to approve the project, it could be tough to get to five. Ward 1 Council member Michael McLaughlin, who represents that section of Mankato, was absent Monday but appeared to be a skeptic in September, saying that commercial growth was harming the residential area.
“How far do we let this expand and how much do we let that neighborhood disappear?” McLaughlin asked then.