10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Even applicant ’s traffic consultant conceded that the expansion of the bar would consume 50% of the available parking on a Friday noon of Applicants choosing, bringing parking usage to 115 of 122 spaces. Mike Gaffron in his memo to the Planning Commission set forth a number of concerns that applicant should address in its traffic and parking study. Applicant did NOT address many of the items requested but most importantly ignored: 1) What parking the CODE would require based upon the all existing uses, potential parking needs based upon prior commitments made by the city to various business owners (including 26 stall reserved for future expansion of 2385 Shadywood) 2) What are the potential parking needs based upon potential uses. 3) What are the parking lot need for park and ride, Navarre Park 4) Analysis of parking provided by private businesses abutting the public parking lot (Applicant ’s consultant claims 30 spaces, but as these areas arc unstriped, it is open to question) 5) Estimates of number of parking stalls if the city lot were rcstriped based upon the City standard of 9’X 20’ and conforming with all setbacks and other standards in City Code 6) Analysis of the existing layout and configuration of the public parking lot in terms of vehicle access to surrounding roads, traffic impacts on local streets, interior site circulation, size and orientation of spaces and drive aisles, ADA requirements, snow removal and storage, pedestrian safety and security, access for service vehicles. NONE of these questions have been answered. Before the city can reasonably proceed to approve the expansion, these important questions must be answered. The municipal lot is a community asset. We believe the study will show that there will be significant parking problems created and future advantageous development will be foreclosed. Your own parking consultant. Shelly Johnson, has raised a number of questions regarding Benshoofs report in her memo to Mike Gafiron dated Sept. 14,2005. We implore the city to hire its own consultant to get a full, independent, unbiased view of what the true impr."t of this expansion will be on parking and traffic. So, for all of the above reasons, we urge the City council to deny the applicant ’s request for expansion of his CUP or at least get independent answers to the questions surrounding the municipal parking lot before acting on the application. in the alternative, the city should not rush to approve applicant ’s request. Rather, the city should be governed by the moratorium just passed. This moratorium was passed to guide future development in Navarre and to study major issues affecting the future of Navarre, just like this one which also involves a community asset, the Municipal Parking Lot. It should tqiply the Moratorium Ordinance according to its terms, which requires ail applications to be stayed while the moratorium is in effect. Charles E. Nadler ^ Neighbors For A Better Navarre H