Laserfiche WebLink
^ * <br />MIMinnSOFTflB <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MCTmO <br />Mondiy, Jaly II, 200S <br />6:00 o'clock p.m. <br />MINUTES OF THE <br />ORONO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING <br />Monday, July 18,2005 <br />6:00 o'clock pjn. <br />J| <br />OLD BUSINESS <br />i. MS-Sni NARROWS SALOON. 33f2 SRORILINE DRIVE, CONDITIONAL USB <br />PERMIT, 6:29 p.m. - 7:34 |i.m. <br />Ondy SudheiiDcr and Jainca Andetil, Appticonis, woe picieat <br />OaffhM) noted Ihia applicabon appeored before the Planning Comniiiaion at thetr June moating, at which <br />lime the applicaii jn waa tabled in order to allow the appliconta time to reviao their plana. The appUcania <br />have aubmiticd reviaed pkmi and have eliminated the propoaad kjiohen addition in the northeaat oonwr of <br />the building and are now propoitng a kitehen addition inaide die building. In addition, the double-door <br />anlraiica extending into the sidewalk area hu been eliminated and the applicants are now propoiing an <br />that will not encroach liifthar than the main wall. <br />OafOon indiealad die outdoor aaoting in the ftont has been ex panded by two additional seats and would <br />still encroach on die Qty'saMawalkaaaeraeaL The applicanls are propoeing a slightly smaller outdoor <br />aeaiing area at the rear of the budding, with the bar station shown in the previous plana bemg eliminaiad. <br />In addition, ttm appliemla are proposing a acreanad trash eneloaure at die north end of the buildotg. <br />OaOran indicaltd it is unelaw ftom the reviaed plana whether the planire boxea remein It the north end of <br />the ooldoor aeatifig in the rear. Oaflhm atatadtheaeplenler boxes cauaed (he need for a rear yard variaiica <br />and are not perminad aneroachmanta. Removal of bituminoua so that the plaid material can be placed <br />into die ground would eliminate the need forarearyard variance. <br />Gaffton slated the revised plena show a minor increase in lot coverage, with the current lot coverage <br />betngit38 perocnL Oeffron stated the propoeed fence in the rear is depicted it S.5ta, which would not <br />be considered stnicliiral coverage. Oafl^ noted Iha bacc would be considered teractural eovnnge if it <br />•chiaves a hei^ of atx fbet <br />OafBon slated die outdoor aaaiing area in dte rear of die bnildmg has been rednead from 1.666 square leal <br />to t,m square fast, with dwaaatingbatngdacroBaad from 14 aaali to 60 aaate. The bar station in the <br />previons plaoa has also been eliminated. This area ramaina acomwbla only from within (he reteawrsot <br />OafBon indicatod the applteanti have diminaled the kitehen addition, which required a side yard setback <br />varianoe and further oloaad in an already realrieliva drive aiala. The reviaed plara show an area within the <br />building as an option for a kitehen expansion. This area is approximately 132 square feet, reducing the <br />public floor area within the building iy 132 square Ibat The appHcante have also eliminated Uia exterior <br />veslibuta and have ineoqwreted an interior vestibule, half within the propoaad main reateurentfliar area <br />and die odiar half widun the banquet area at the westefii and of the building. Bliminolionorihe veaiibule <br />atiminated the need for a ftont yard Mlfaeckvwtenca. Howovar, the revised plana note an option to <br />straighten out the ftont aninf wall in dteloeationofthaprtvioualy requested exterior vodbulc. Ifthe <br />appHcante pureuaalreigtite aiwg put thte wall, a fiootyaidialbackvirianoa would be required; although <br />the encroachmani would be no more than wMt exists today. Elimination of the kitehen end intibuia <br />addituma and mcorporetion of them inio the building aubaequant reduead iha number of teats proposed <br />wilhm the interior height Baaed on (he ptiWie apMt roduation of 132 aquare fret, the required ofT^tal <br />ptfVing is reduead ky taro qwMytf <br />PAGES <br />(•05-3121 Narrows Saloon, Cootiaaed) <br />Oifftoo indicated the dticumion at the previous Pteiming Commttiion meeting dcmonatiated e need to <br />conduct ■ perking study for the City lot end fhcbutincaes using it GalBon recommended that a parkmg <br />study be completed by a consuUam hired by the applicant, with an analysis orptiking needs of all <br />commercial busmemes that abut the public parking lot GafTron slated the applicant would need to review <br />(he parking needs baaed on the square roolages of til existing uaes, including occupied and potentially <br />occupied interior tpecet, the potential parking needs baaed on potential uses relating to pemutted and <br />conditional uses allowed in the B-1 Diitnct, and a review of prior commitments concerning parking made <br />by the City to various business ownere. <br />In addition, an analysts of parking needs for non-commercial uses of the parking lot, including the Park 8l <br />Ride, Navarre Paric, and oO kt unidenlifted uiea not directly aervmg the surrounding businesses. The <br />parking study dtould also look at the relationship of peak parking need times and hours for various <br />busmeaaes and otfier uaes served by the lot end an enalytis of perking provided tnd/or potentially <br />developable within the various private busmeu properties abutting the public parking lot should be <br />completed. An estimeie of pirlung stalb available in the public lot under current configuration and an <br />estimate of the maumum number of parking stalls that ought be poteotially available under wioas <br />reconfigurations need to be completed. <br />Oaf&on recommended the trsdic study alto address the following. <br />• vehicle acccsaibility to surrounding roads <br />• traffic impacli on local city sireeti <br />• layout convenience related to the various uteri <br />- interior aite diculation <br />• atae and oricotetioo of spaces and drive aialas <br />• ADA arcataibility lequhcfnenls <br />- staniiwBter sHnagement <br />• mow removal aod teorage; ease of mainlBiHice <br />• pedestrian safety simI security <br />for Krvioc vdticka. i.e., tmh haufiog, burineai detimka <br />Oaffron noted additional public comments have been received from concern residents following die June <br />Planning Commitiion meeting <br />OafTron recommended (he applicant further reduce die outdoor seating areas and possibly the mtericir <br />expansion in order to reduce the smount of required parking <br />Slaff II recommending the applictUon be tabled until a parking study is completed by the applicant <br />Sudheimer indicated Ihe number of tables in the front could be decreased by four, which would reduce it <br />from 33 Isbka to 28 tables. <br />Rahn inquired whether the applicant hat pursued a parking study. <br />PACE 6