From: RICHARD Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 6:05 PM To: Dermody, Bill (CI-StPaul); Thune, Dave (CI-StPaul) Subject: Stone saloon Hi! My name is Anna Kobett and I live at 444 Smith Av. directly across the road from the proposed stone saloon. I have many issues with this proposal, so I plan to list them. 1. This is a residential neighborhood, and that is why we bought our home here back in 1991. The businesses that were here at the time, had very simple hours, and quiet reigned in the evenings. We were able to allow our children to play outside without having to listen to constant noise from parties taking place til late at night. That is not the case any more. The "Stone Saloon" is very busy trying to drum up support with parties and groups even now. My mornings begin at 4:00am to be ready and at work on time. The noise is already interfering with sleep at our home. Not a good mix, when you take into account that I operate machinery for a living. There are also many children living in the area, and not all of them want to join their dad's for a beer at the age of 6. There are also many elderly in the area, and sleep is easily disrupted for most older people. 2. As far as we have been able to determine, there has been no permit issued to move the small house next door, which is also on the historic registry, yet the work to move it goes on anyway. It is a real shame that historic vandalism is being allowed unchecked! 3. The historic brewery spoken of as having once been there was in fact the only way to be allowed to brew your own beer without running afoul of the laws in place in the 1800's. So to say it was once used to brew beer is technically accurate; however the alternative was to be fined for moonshine type activities. There is also no evidence we have been able to find that it was a saloon selling that beer, and there should have been tax records of sales. 4. The Historic Use Variance is a new rule that fails to place conditions that take into account the use being appropriate for its proximity to nearby residences, and the Historic Use Variance should be amended to have the same requirements that the regular zoning variances have to meet. We realize that this is a test subject for this variance, let's not set a bad precedent for the city. 5. There are still the ADA laws that are not being taken into consideration, and the amount of changes necessary would again necessitate changing the front of the building again, and the placement of an elevator for access to the proposed second floor. The proposed kitchen building will be infringing on the neighbor directly behind it. The mess and smell from kitchen hoods is horrid. Will they be required to pay for cars and homes needing to be de-greased from the hood exhaust? 6 The parking being proposed is half a block away from the site. It is big enough for 6 stalls maybe. 1 would be required to be handicapped parking only. Do you really think that is an adequate or appropriate parking solution? Especially since the occupancy rating proposed is 50 people. We have already gone to permit parking only to even be able to park near our home. If this goes through, I for one would like to insist on the street parking here being changed to permit parking only 24/7. 7. The proposed hours of operation are very vague, with the claim being that it will close at 10:00pm. If we can not stop the saloon from happening, than we need to at least be able to make this, and NO outdoor seating happen among the conditions. 8, Water and sewage issues for this proposal are what? Both in place now are for residential standards. What will the increase of use there be doing to the rest of the neighborhood? Or will our services be disrupted again while these are changed over to commercial use? 9. The alley between the parking area and the saloon will become a high traffic area with pedestrians (the claim being that the customers will use the sidewalks) is dark at night. Do we really need to deal with more light pollution, and who is paying for the extra lights? What about the wintertime? Will the saloon be required to plow the alley? And if one of their customers slips and falls on the way to their to or from their car, is the city being held accountable, the home owner nearest, or the saloon for injuries received. Since I may not be able to be there in person for this next meeting, I wanted these issues addressed. As you may have guessed, I am very much opposed to the idea of the stone house becoming a saloon. We have already more than reached the saturation point for bars and breweries in this area. Anna Kobett 444 Smith Av N St Paul, MN. 55102