My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
10-10-2005 Council Packet
Orono
>
City Council
>
2005
>
10-10-2005 Council Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/12/2023 12:30:30 PM
Creation date
1/12/2023 11:55:26 AM
Metadata
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
450
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION <br />Monday, September 19,2005 <br />6:00 o’clock p.m. <br />Bremer indicated she also is in agreement with the comments of Leslie, but that she does have some <br />questions for the parking consultant. Bremer stated the Planning Commission is only able to deal with <br />the application that is before them tonight and not the overall possible future development of this area. <br />Bremer commented historically the area of Navarre has not seen a lot of redevelopment and that in her <br />opim'on this expansion is right for Navarre. Bremer stated in her opinion once an application is pending, a <br />law cannot be imposed on that application and would be subject to the laws that exist at the time the <br />application is submitted. Bremer stated the moratorium is important in her mind but that it does not apply <br />in this situation. <br />Bremer stated she would be in agreement with increasing the heigh! of the back wall to eight feet if that <br />would help address the noise concerns. Bremer stated the parking problem cannot be ignored but in her <br />view it is not enough to stop this application fiom going forward to the Council. <br />Jim Benshoof, Benshoof & Associates, stated the basic question of parking adequacy is very valid and <br />that there are three ways to approach that question. Benshoof stated one approach is to ask whether this <br />proposal makes sense, and the second approach is to ask whether the parking study addresses the current <br />and future parking needs of the area. The third approach would be to rely more specifically on a code <br />review. Benshoof indicated he would be able to speak to that question, but he would prefer to speak to <br />the intuitive approach to the parking. <br />Benshoof stated according to City Code, this expansion would require 63 spots. Benshoof stated the <br />peatest demand for parking from this establishment is in the evening hours and that the study <br />demonstrated at peak demand times that the Narrow’s Saloon would require less than half of the parking <br />that is available in the area. Benshoof stated in his view this expansion does make sense in terms of the <br />paridng. Benshoof reviewed the peak demand times for parking for the Narrow’s Saloon and pointed out <br />that their study does account for an increase in the park-n-ride of six parking stalls as well as an increased <br />PAGE 11
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.