03-27-2006 Council Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

C. • MINUTES OF THE ORONO CITY COUNCIL MEETING Monday, March 27, 2006 7:00 o'clock p.m. (5. #05 -3121 NARROWS SALOON, 3382 SHORELINE DRIVE —CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT = RESOLUTION NO. • 5440 — CONTINUED) Gaffron explained that a typical rear yard is allowed a 6' high fence; however, as a commercial site the Council has the authority to review the sizeof the patio enclosed by a fence. Anderst stated that, indeed, he would like to u the patio since people enjoy dining outside. Sansevere stated that he had no problem with request will result in additional occupancy wh Murphy stated that, in Hennepin County, even like a smoker's patio and he was satisfied that Attorney Brokl stated that any expanded outsi the building and potentially put dining out on ,ide dining, but expanding the current patio he doubted the parking could support. Ily most restaurants will have to offer something annual review would be sufficient. dining would be limited by the available parking. Charles Nadler, 2509 Kelly Avenue, submitted a letter into the record, in which he questions parking, noise, and the size of the smoker's patio. He questioned how many seats would be allowed on the smoker's patio. Nadler commented that, as a citizen, he objected to the use of the city municipal lot for the Narrows use. He urged them city to conduct its own parking study, not to rely on the study performed by the applicant, and assess the cost back to the applicant. White stated that, while a satisfactory parking study was completed, it is the Council's job to determine whether what was found to exist is adequate. Nadler encouraged the Council to further limit or define the size of the smoker's patio to half the proposed dimension. He did not feel its size should be based on some future restaurant expansion to encompass outside dining. Nadler pointed out that the current smoker's patio made up of about 12 seats seems to accommodate the restaurant fine and he urged staff to keep the proposed patio to a similar scale. Sanford stated that the proposed patio is within code and is compliant. Murphy stated that there are numerous unkno's with this proposed expansion. While it is unknown for sure if the parking is adequate, and may prove to be insufficient, an ongoing annual review of the CUP is warranted and will help to answer these questions. He added that even with the unknowns, there is not enough rationale to deny the request; especially since the applicant has supplied the city with everything it's asked for. Anderst interjected his feeling that, if he and the review the pros and cons adjusting accordingly, While he found the overall proposal appealing, too big, offering too much seating, and a bigger there. work together on the improvements and thing should resolve itself. 5of14 stated that he found the size of the patio i for people to hang out, drink, and eat