09-19-2005 Planning Commission Packet

Home Browse Search

EXHIBIT G� �t��'1�l�'C� � July 13, 2oos '��l- � 4 Zd05 C1TY OF �DRONO City of Orono 2750 Kelley Parkway Orono, MN 55356 Attn: Mike Gaffron Re: Proposed Narrows Saloon exp�tnsion. � Dear Mr. Gaffron, Due to many concerns I am advocating no outdoor dining be allowed at the remodeled Narrows Saloon. But it appears that the planning comniissioners are contemplating some sort of outdoor dining on the north side of the building. If such dining is allowed i feel the noise problem needs to be addressed thoroughly. Here are some points of concern: 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 neighUorhood to the north. Due to the slope of the parking lot and the higher elevation of the neigliborhood 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 total coverage to at least 45°�/0 when 15% is allowed, requiring the granting of a variance. � 3. The folding doors facing the dining area will let a significant amount of noise out into the dining area and subsequently 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 noise. Pool tables situated in front of this door will also contribute to the overall noise level. For the reasons stated above it appears that the revised plan is very poorly conceived in terms of noise abatement. At the last planning commission meeting, noise abatement was the commissioners' Uiggest concern and it was suggested that the wall surrounding the outdoor dining area needed to be suUstantial enough to block uoise from carrying into the surrounding neighborhood. Yet Uy increasing the height the applicant will need a variance. It seems the commissioners' request is at odds with the Orono zoning codes. Increasing the height of the outdoor wall would do a lot to reduce noise carry over but at the same time this would require a variance, and.I fail to see how the applicants can claim a hardship. So if the applicant is allowed to have ouldoor dining I would suggest th�t the only rational solution is to curtail all outside activity at an early hour such as 9:30 out of respect for the neighUors. I would also suggest that the planning coinmission lay out precisely how any CUP would be enforced and monitored. The last CUP was not enforced, lhe owner was out of compliance, and instead of being punished lhey are in all likelihood being rewarded with a grant of an expanded CUP.