10-10-2005 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r' H ■m ;^-'v Exnrerrci RECEIVEO •'«•• I 4 2005 CITY OF ORONO July 13,2005 Oiy of Orooo 2750 ICellcy Parkway OfOfio, MN 55356 Aun: Mikt Oaffm Re: PropoMd Nanows Saloon axpantkM. Dear Mr. GafTron, Due (o many concerns I am a^tvocaiing no outdoor dining be allowed at the remodeled Narrows Saloon. But U appears that ttie planning commissioners are contemplating some sort of outdoor dining on the north side of the building. If such dining is allowed 1 feel the noise problem needs to be addressed thoroughly. Here are aonie points of coocem: 1. The height of the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area at 5*- 6** is not tall enough to stop noise from traveling into the neighborhood to the north. Due to the slope of the parking lot and the higher elevation of the neighborhood the wall needs to be much higher. 2. If the wall is made higher than 6* then the outdoor dining area would be counted as structural coverage of the lot, bringing the tout coverage to at least 45% when 15% is allowed, requiring the granting of a variance. 3. The folding doori facing the dining area will lit a significant amount of noise out into the dining area and aubaequently the neighborhood to the north. You can draw a line straight from the live music stage to the nearest folding door with no wall in between to stop nolle. Pool tables situated in front of this door will also cootribula to the overall noise level. For the rveaoot italed above It appears that the revised plan is very poorly conceived in terms cf noise aboiement At the last plaoning oommissiou meeting, noise abatemeni was the corominionert* biggni concern and it was suggested tiw. the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area needed to be subsiamial enough to block noise from carrying into the Burroufiding ntighborhood. Yet by increaaing the height the applicant will need a variance, tl seems the commttaionera* requaet is at odds with the Otono loning codes. Increasing the height of the outdoor wail would do a lot to reduce noise carry over but at the same lime ibis would require a variance, and I fail to see how the applicants can claim a hardship. So if the applicant it allowed lo have outdoor dining I would suggest that *he only rational solution it to curttil all ouiaidc activity at an early hour such as 9:30 out of respect for the neighbors. 1 would also suggest that the planning commission lay out precisely how any CUP would be enforced and monitored. The last CUP was not •nforced, the owner was out of oompliacicc, and instead of being punished they are in all likelihood being rewarded with a gram of an expanded CUP. exhibit G I also would appreciate hearing from the planning commission as to their response to Chief Good's concerns. It would seem that the Cliirf cf Police’s concerns, above all others, would be given a healthy dose of respect yet they were not even discussed at the last meeting. Why? I would like to iicar the cotnmissinners rea.soning in this respect at tlic planning airmnitsion meeting on July IK'\ 2tX)5 In closing 1 would like to ad that it is curious that all the commissioners reported that they have a favorable view of the Nairows Saloon heuiuse they had. had a good meal there, as if that is relevant to the discussion of the applicants request for a large expansion. That may be fine and good but that should not enter into the equation for determining if this expansion should be .nllowrJ t .vould suggest that iliey try getting a good nights sleep in one of the houses on Lyric Avenue or Kelly Avenue on a Saturday night, rather than eating a meal at the Narrows Saloon. This experience would be far more relevant to the issues ni hand. Please include this letter in it«c Panning Commissioners package .ind make it a part of the legal record. Sincerely, Thomas Lowe 3295 Carman Rd Excelsior. MN 55.^31 Cc: Planning Commission A Council Members