07-18-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

= EXHtBIT C� . givetl my personal experience on the subject and the City's previously stated zero-tolerance policy. This precedent will surely set the tone for firture applicants as it appears that a hardship is NOT required but, rather, a donation to the Park Board will suffice. One of the clear and negative impacts of this pending approval is that it will�reclude further redevelopment of the north side of Navan-e rather than serve as an impehis. This is a simple fact given that it aloile will generate parking denland requiriiig most of the municipal lot. It will preclude the procurement of any additional retailers. Already it has cost two valuable local service providers (dry clea�ier and nail shop). The plans as submitted do not comply with the existing CUP. The applicant, contrary to the staff report, has coinplied wilh only ONE of the SIX conditions set forth in the CUP (maintaining a liqttor liceiise). The City has apparently done nothing to enforce the existing coiiditions or the existing CUP would have been revolced. We, as good neighbors, have beezl tolerant and,recognizing that many people wish to fi equent Uars, have only rarely complained of the noise and disniption caused by the Saloon. We experience so much noise that we are ilot able to open our windows in the evening. The ability to open our wiildows was a inajor reason for living here. Apparently the squealcy wheel gets the grease. We will all be inuch more vigilant in reporting violations to the police departinent in the future. Contrary to the applicants statements that tlie grocery store air conditioner malces more noise than his bar be advised that none of us have ever heard such a noise as they have employed a state-of- the-art unit that has low noise levels. We DO, llowever, experience trash hauler and delivery noise at 6:00 a.m. daily tllat needs to be addressed. The laws of the State of Minn.esota prohibit the issu�nce of a liquor license in a residential zoning district. They do so for good reason, Alcohol and residences do not mix. Tlze fact that this sliver of land is zoned Business does not initigate the fact that it is completely sutYOUnded Uy residential uses. The fact t11at a bar previously existed on a poi�tion of the site is coinpletely irrelevant to any past, curreilt or future applications as they all rnust be coi�sidered on their own merits. This brazen attempt to expand a Uusiness to over three times its pei-�nissible size under the City Code, sinlply Uecause it can malce more money if it does so, is transparent anct reprehensible. The Salooil already inalces a 11rge portion of its profit by virtue of its competitive advantage over other restaurant/b�rs (such as Lord Fletchers) that were required to ptirchase and maiiziain their own parking lots. Additionally, the bar's square footage already exceeds City Code. To exacerbate the Salooii's non-confonnance ii�.the absence of any 111TC1S111� 1S 110t Orily 1178S�JO17S1U1e—lt 15 L1111i1Wf111.