09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

� EXHIBIT C� . given my personal experience on the subject and tlie City's previously stated zero-tolerance policy. This precedent will surely set the tone for future applicants as it appears that a hardsliip 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 preclude further redevelopment of the 1lorth side of Navane rather than serve as an impetus. This is a simple fact given that it alone will generate parking delnand requiring most of tl�e inunicipal lot. It will preclude the procurement of any additional retailers. Already it has cost two valuable local seivice providers (dry cleaner and nail shop). The plans as submitted do not comply with tl�e existilig CUP. The applicaut, contrary to the staff report, has coinplied with only ONE of the SIX conditions set forth in the CUP (maintaining a liquor license). The City has apparently done nothing to enforce tlie existing conditions or the existing CUP would have been revoked. We, as good iieighbors, have been tolerant and,recognizing that many�eople wish to fi�equent bars, have only rarely complained of the noise and disniption caused by the Saloon. We experience so much noise that we a.re not aUle to open our windows in the eveniilg. Tl�e ability to open our windows was a major reason for living here. Apparelltly the squealcy wheel gets the g�.•ease. We will all be inuch more vigilant in reporting violations to the police departinent in the fiiture. Coirtrary to the applicants statements that tlze grocery store air conditioner inakes more noise than his bar be advised that iione 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, however, experience trash hauler and delivery noise at 6:00 a.in. daily that needs to be addressed. The laws of the State of Minnesota prohibit the issuance of a liquor license in a residential zoning district. They do so for good reason. Alcohol and residences do not mix. The fact that this sliver of land is zoned Business does not mitigate the fact that it is completely surrounded by residential uses. The fact that a bar previously existed oil a portion of the site is completely inelevant to aiiy past, cui�ent or fut�ire applications as they all must be coilsidered on their own merits. This brazen attempt to expand a busilless to over tYu ee times its pei7nissible size under the City Gode, simply Uecause it can malce inore money if it c�oes so, is transparent and reprehensible. The Saloon already malces a large portion of its profit by virtue of its competitive advantage over other restaurant/Uars (such �s Lord Fletchers) that were required to purchase and inaiiitain their own parking lots. Additionally, the bar's square footage already exceeds City Code, To exacerbate the Saloon's non-corifoi711ance in the absence of any lzardship is not only ii�•espansible—it is uillawfill.