Proposal would allow more businesses in Murray Hill & Springfield to sell liquor

[thelakelander]

By David Chapman, Staff Writer

Reggie Gaffney thinks the bill will be a way to help revitalize Main Street.
Jim Love thinks it will be a way to continue momentum for Murray Hill's comeback.

The two City Council members are partnering on a local bill that mirrors one the Florida Legislature passed last year that was seen as a way to improve business in the Riverside and Avondale areas.

That bill, also sponsored locally by Love, relaxed the size and seating requirements of establishments that wanted to sell liquor.

"Smaller restaurants aren't the same," said Love. "They don't have the same footprint and I want to give them the same opportunities as the big guys."

Love said the footprint applies to square footage, space for seating and even parking. Often in the more historical commercial corridors, space is more limited.

The local bill being pursued this year would allow stretches of Springfield and Murray Hill to apply for liquor licenses if the businesses are at least 1,800 square feet and can seat 100 people. That's down from the standard 2,500 square feet and 150 seats.

Full article: http://www.jaxdailyrecord.com/showstory.php?Story_id=548822

[Tacachale]

Sounds like a great step in the right direction.

[Lucasjj]

I support this law but maybe someone who is better at reading the overlay can help me out here. The benefit of this law is it helps smaller restaurants be profitable by having a full bar at a cheaper price than a stand alone liquor license. It also entices business to take over existing structures and allows for smaller and less intensive restaurants.

If I am understanding the current overlay correctly, you can come into a historical contributing structure that is less than 2,000 sq feet and/or 100 seats and not provide for parking. However the overlay change that was recently being pushed by Jim Love calls for reducing the seating to less than or equal to 90 and (not and/or) less than or equal to 1,800 square feet for no required parking. This would effectively negate this law change and force businesses to purchase the more expensive liquor license. Which is exactly the opposite of "giving them the same opportunity of the big guys".

Please correct me if I am wrong in my understanding of all of this.

This is the wording in the bill summary he produced for the recent community meeting.

Commercial Character Area Parking: 2016-580 would modify the operation of the parking requirements for restaurants in the Commercial Character Area. Specifically, the proposed amendment would reduce the threshold to require the same parking requirement (50% of the requirement of Sec. 656.604) to restaurants with more than 90 seats or more than 2,000 square feet of total heating and cooled area. Also, by adding the clarification for indoor and outdoor seating to the seat calculation, the parking requirement calculation now applies to all restaurant seating where the current code does not specify. Further, removing the "and/or" and changing it to "or" would impose the parking requirement to a restaurant that exceeds either the seat or square footage amount. If a restaurant has equal to or less than 90 seats and equal to or less than 2,000 square feet of total heated or cooled area, there would be no required parking. This change was made in response to the recent J-Bill (Ch. 2016-248) that reduced the state mandated threshold seating and square footage requirement for special restaurant liquor license (SRX) in Urban Transition and Commercial Character Areas for restaurants having more than 100 seats and more than 1,800 square feet of floor space. Furthermore, the bill would clearly exclude parking reductions from Part 6 of the Zoning Code and would convert the text of Sec. 656.399.22(2)(a)-(g) to a table for ease of use.