urbanMSP

Sorry if there's already a thread for it. I'm now driving by the Starbucks at Snelling and Marshall every weekday morning and I have to say I'm blown away that such a phenomenally terrible land use was approved this decade by Saint Paul. Drive thrus of any sort don't belong in a place that dense, but this specific drive thru amps up the stupidity to a whole new level - the traffic coming in and the traffic going out literally have to cross through each other as they complete the loop, meaning that a literal actual gridlock would happen continuously if the cars were left to their own devices - so they employ a police officer to manage the traffic and prevent the gridlock.

Minneapolis in the 1970s was at a place where they were so desperate to avoid a complete flight of business to the suburbs that they felt like they had to approve awful things that were harmful to the city; in a few isolated incidents they made actively detrimental choices like the Nicollet KMart. But why in the world, in 2015 or so, was Saint Paul feeling so vulnerable that they'd approve such a stupid design? I can't imagine anything this stupid being approved in the last decade.

Okay, so I'm late to the game. But we don't appear to have a thread on it, do we?

No, but good timing since Starbucks is currently working on another disaster at Randolph and Hamline...

City of Saint Paul felt it was too risky to avoid exposure to litigation, so they just let Starbucks run roughshod over the city. The engineering/traffic study done beforehand was obviously a farce, and now it won't likely change any time soon. If "we" approve the Carbucks 2.0 then you'll really know this town is still stuck in the 70s mindset.

they built a Starbucks at 47th St and Cedar Ave in Minneapolis recently with a drive through. it has not had the same issues, although I was worried that it was going to. Minneapolis only allowed them one curb cut on Cedar (they wanted an entrance too) and I think that helps. It always seems busy, but not so much so that cars are overflowing. I still wish it wasn't there...

A source tells me that Carbucks' drive thru is closed indefinitely.

What??? Need more details on this. Big if true.

The neighborhood met with management a few weeks back and they're scheduled to visit the transportation committee in May. Had not heard of any closures though.

It's been closed for at least a few days.

Employees don't want to works with a cop on duty, the cop is required by the city, thus the drive-thru is closed. https://twitter.com/FrederickMelo/statu ... 8734811137

That's an unexpected twist. Also, I just learned the Pioneer Press allows anonymous comments and they're as dumb as you expect. Lots of predictions of Starbucks bankruptcy and a rampant uptick in crime at this location due to "woke" employees. Lol.

Probably too much to wish for, but maybe they'll remove the drive thru approval and/or Starbucks will voluntarily get rid of the drive thru.

Considering the number of people that won't stop and buy stuff if a drive-thru is not available, more likely start asking potential employees if they're willing to work with a police officer on the scene and then not hiring them if they won't.

Imagine if I had a job at Caribou and said I wasn't willing to work without a cop on the premises because I was worried about armed robberies.

Can they legally ask that question?
I doubt they will remove the drive through unless they don't see a large drop in sales with it closed. If they do I can see them closing it if not this will get interesting to say the least. Also the officer is directing traffic which given the amount of traffic this place causes seems like a good thing.

In August 2018, the city’s Planning Commission approved a site plan modification that, as a condition of maintaining a drive-through at 234 Snelling Ave. N., requires Starbucks to “provide, at their expense, a traffic control officer to direct vehicular traffic on the site during the morning peak period. This condition may be modified in the future by the Planning Commission if the applicant can demonstrate that any modification will not adversely site operations or public safety.” On Monday, a spokeswoman for the city’s Department of Safety and Inspections said she had no knowledge of a formal application to have the condition removed.

So having a traffic cop on-site is a required condition of their CUP to operate the drive-thru. As I vaguely remember the history, Starbucks opened and almost immediately drive-thru queues were blocking the bike lane (possibly blocking car traffic too?). The city found them to be in violation of CUP conditions that prohibit blocking of traffic lanes (perhaps among other issues) and threatened to revoke their CUP. So Starbucks and the city came up with a number of new mitigation measures to be able to operate the drive-thru legally, such as the added bollards and whatnot. One of those new conditions was the requirement to have a traffic cop. They are not able to operate the drive-thru legally without a traffic control cop (at least during morning peak).

Does St. Paul not have unarmed traffic control like Minneapolis does? I don't think the Minneapolis ones are even in the Police Department; traffic control is part of Regulatory Services or something. Why would St. Paul send an off-duty sworn officer, rather than a traffic control agent? Why would Starbucks have done a contract for off-duty officer? I'd guess a sworn, off-duty cop would cost more than a non-sworn traffic control agent. Maybe the problem is that there is no established process/precedent for contracting a single traffic-control agent from the city, and the only option is an off-duty cop.

Can they legally ask that question?
I doubt they will remove the drive through unless they don't see a large drop in sales with it closed. If they do I can see them closing it if not this will get interesting to say the least. Also the officer is directing traffic which given the amount of traffic this place causes seems like a good thing.

I'm no expert in employment law, but why couldn't they? You're asking a question that's directly relevant to whether they can do the job or not as opposed to something of the nature of what their religion or family status is.

I guess to me in todays social environment that comes across as asking about ones political views given how political the issue of policing has become. Granted I dont think it should be as its a cop directing traffic vs other duties of there job which seems very good given how backed up this store is. Could they not have a off duty cop just not be armed if thats the issue?
Overall I do expect them to reopen the drive through, im not sure what standing the employees have on this. I couldnt imagine the cub workers successfully forcing the uptown cub to no longer have an off duty cop out front anymore.

Does St. Paul not have unarmed traffic control like Minneapolis does? I don't think the Minneapolis ones are even in the Police Department; traffic control is part of Regulatory Services or something. Why would St. Paul send an off-duty sworn officer, rather than a traffic control agent? Why would Starbucks have done a contract for off-duty officer? I'd guess a sworn, off-duty cop would cost more than a non-sworn traffic control agent. Maybe the problem is that there is no established process/precedent for contracting a single traffic-control agent from the city, and the only option is an off-duty cop.

To my knowledge Saint Paul doesn't have traffic control agents on staff, and whereas Minneapolis ordinance allows traffic control agents working for the city to direct traffic, Saint Paul's ordinance only allows police and fire officers to do so. City staff here is really cut to the bone--even parking enforcement only has a handful of people.

Parking enforcement citywide is two full-time people. lol

https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... 0#cxrecs_s

Good bye drive through