09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT F� JUL Z 4 2005 �ITY OF �RO�1C3 � Issues Relating to Narrow Proposed Expansion The city council should take the lead in spearheading 1n effort to come up with an overall small area development plan for downtown Navarre that will meet the needs of the neighborhood residents, allow the development of successful neighborhood service businesses, 1nd solves the traffic, parking noise and growing puUlic nuisance problems. Until a moratorium is established and a small area plan created, the city and residents will be forced to deal with these issues piecemeal, like we are dealing with this proposed Narrow expansion and the Keaveny Restaurant/Bar proposal last year. The Narrows proposed expansion is out of character with the cities comprehensive plan. CMP Part 3B requires that the Uusinesses are there priinarily to serve the LOCAL residents not create regional businesses. Even applicants proposal, revised for the July l� Planning Commission Meeting, expands the facility fi•oin 2174 square feet to 5207 square feet, an inerease of 3033 square feet (including the rear decic and outdoor seating on Shoreline Drive). This is an increase of almost 2.5 times its current size. A facility that size, replete with an �dditional 84 outside seats is in violalion of this section of the comprehensive plan. It has crossed over the line of being a neighborhood est�Ulishment to a regional draw. Allowing the Narrows to expand as currently proposed will set the tone of the Navarre neighborhood commercial center for years to come. The use will dominate the Northwest Quadrant of the County Road 15/County Road 19 intersection and by utilizing over 50% of the Municipal parking lot may foreclose the development of more appropriate and varied neighUorhood commercial uses. The comprehensive plan also requires that commercial development will not be permitted to adversely affect the neighboring residential property. A review of the attached memo by the Chief of Police and the eight incident reports just within the last year that relate to noise, theft, disorderly conduct etc caused by the poor attitude and management practices of applicant allow for no other conclusion than applicant has not only not Ueen a good neighbor to the residents in most close proximity to his establishment but liold them in some distain, standing them up at a meeting applicant agreed to attend and expressly called to have applicant present its plans to them for comment. Applicant's revised proposal in response to planning commissions' comments reflects his arrogance as well. Tliere are serious policy questions that surrouncl the Municipal parking lot that supplies the vast majority of spaces to the Saloon. First, why does the city staff take the position that that"the lot need not be striped to meet the provisions of the code Uut rather to • provide the most parking stalls possible given the space available" (contained in Michael Gaffron's July 6 letter reply to Bradley Hoyt's June 21 letter) Why wouldn't thlt same relsoning apply to any parking lot in �l�e city? Is the city above complying with its own laws? Would that position survive legal cllallenge? Second, is it good public policy to use over 50°�0 of the Municipal lot for this one use? (Applicant's revised proposal almost doubles the amount of parking required from 38 to 65 stalls)