http://jacksonville.com/business/2011-06-30/story/beyond-bay-street-more-downtown-jacksonville-bars-want-extend-their-space
"At the bars along a three-block stretch of Bay Street, patrons can order alcoholic beverages inside the storefront buildings and then drink them outside on neon-lit sidewalks, mingling in the slipstream of people drawn to downtown Jacksonville's nightlife.
Other bars near Bay Street want to offer the same outdoor option for their customers.
But under the city's current ordinance, they cannot get city permits to set up sidewalk cafes.
A proposal headed for City Council would loosen the restriction by doubling the downtown zone where bars can use sidewalks for their customers."
etc etc
I knew they were going to bring up the church issue.
The city needs to get the hell out of the way! Jesus, Don Redman, give me a break! The churches will survive a little sidewalk seating.
Of course half his constituents are probably totally in agreement with him. This city. Jeezis.
Don "Bass Ackwards" Redman
We'll see what happens. He is not the only person on the city council. I'll keep my fingers crossed.
For every table allowed, require one bicycle rack installed. Don will come around. Oh, requiring a separate vegetarian menu will help, too.
I think this is going forward. It is an expansion of what is in place now and will be successful. It will be expanded again following more success.
Quote from: Ralph W on June 30, 2011, 10:52:09 AM
For every table allowed, require one bicycle rack installed. Don will come around. Oh, requiring a separate vegetarian menu will help, too.
Bike racks would be great.
Quote from: Ralph W on June 30, 2011, 10:52:09 AM
For every table allowed, require one bicycle rack installed. Don will come around. Oh, requiring a separate vegetarian menu will help, too.
That would be too much racks. You mean one SLOT per table? Basically 6 slots = one bike rack, so you need six tables to hook a brother up!
-Josh
Sidewalk cafes with some adult beverages are not 'family friendly,' but having a half-dead downtown that is filled with dark alleys and abandoned buildings is great for our 'family' atmosphere! This further illustrates why the urban core needs to have its own dedicated representative on the city council...
Hopefully he'll see that this is obviously good legislation. The expanded zone shouldn't be near the churches if that's really his concern.
Quote from: Ralph W on June 30, 2011, 10:52:09 AM
For every table allowed, require one bicycle rack installed. Don will come around. Oh, requiring a separate vegetarian menu will help, too.
are you implyïng the don's a vegetarian?
Quote from: Tacachale on June 30, 2011, 02:37:08 PM
Hopefully he'll see that this is obviously good legislation. The expanded zone shouldn't be near the churches if that's really his concern.
I think he just wanted something to say. Honestly, this oridiance will not have a negative impact. bay street succeed with no issues. So I think he's already trying to make an arguement that is not even there.
you can sip on wine inside the church, but you can have a beer on the street adjacent to the church. Ridiculous!
Maybe the bars outdoor seating can be located adjacent to the Catholic churches? :)
So, the church believes their religion is strong enough to save sinners from eternal hell, but can't combat a couple of tables, chairs, and adult beverages on a sidewalk? lame.
Quote from: JaxNative68 on June 30, 2011, 03:26:42 PM
you can sip on wine inside the church, but you can have a beer on the street adjacent to the church. Ridiculous!
Maybe the bars outdoor seating can be located adjacent to the Catholic churches? :)
What church is near by the Bay Street clubs?
I dont believe that there are any churches close enough the these establishments to make an argument. I am sure when they considered expanding the district, they took the distance of near by churches into consideration. (they had too) Isnt there an ordinance stating that these types of establishments can not be located in so many feet of a church?
Duval dude is correct. You have to get a waiver (or exception) by the city council to the law that requires 1500' distance from a church if you are running a full liquor bar with no food. I think it is 500 feet with a beer & wine license. Not sure what the SRX distance is (that is a restaurant that has full liquor), but it may also be 500'.
The churches start on Adams (or one clock north perhaps) and there are more than one. None are First Baptist who, by the way, did not openly oppose these changes (which is to their credit). Remember these were the 'heady' pre-Super Bowl Days.
The 1500' is done by a land survey and is part of the application for the waiver, etc. You have up to one year to use the waiver or it goes away and you have to start over (tedious process it is).
The city council, at the request of the JEDC and Mayor Peyton's office, approved the first one which would have been in and above the Mark's location had it been built (it was to be called 'Orchid Ultra Lounge', I believe). That was the key event that opened up Downtown to being able to even have bars there due to the zoning laws.
So, ultimately hats off to Mayor Peyton and his staff, JEDC and staff and the city council for making this rather significant change. Plus a big thanks to the churches for not opposing the idea in front of city council. And of course you have to have a willing landlord to help with approval process.
This has nothing to do with the cafe license you are discussing of course.
Just thought I would chime in with the scoop.
FYI,
Mark
Yeah, what ever happened to the Orchid Ultra Lounge project? Another great idea that never came to fruition.
Quote from: marksjax on July 03, 2011, 04:24:41 AM
Duval dude is correct. You have to get a waiver (or exception) by the city council to the law that requires 1500' distance from a church if you are running a full liquor bar with no food. I think it is 500 feet with a beer & wine license. Not sure what the SRX distance is (that is a restaurant that has full liquor), but it may also be 500'.
The churches start on Adams (or one clock north perhaps) and there are more than one. None are First Baptist who, by the way, did not openly oppose these changes (which is to their credit). Remember these were the 'heady' pre-Super Bowl Days.
The 1500' is done by a land survey and is part of the application for the waiver, etc. You have up to one year to use the waiver or it goes away and you have to start over (tedious process it is).
The city council, at the request of the JEDC and Mayor Peyton's office, approved the first one which would have been in and above the Mark's location had it been built (it was to be called 'Orchid Ultra Lounge', I believe). That was the key event that opened up Downtown to being able to even have bars there due to the zoning laws.
So, ultimately hats off to Mayor Peyton and his staff, JEDC and staff and the city council for making this rather significant change. Plus a big thanks to the churches for not opposing the idea in front of city council. And of course you have to have a willing landlord to help with approval process.
This has nothing to do with the cafe license you are discussing of course.
Just thought I would chime in with the scoop.
FYI,
Mark
Thanks Mark clearing that up!
The more downtown bars and restaurants that have outside seating the better. People will want to walk around a vibrant downtown, which is not going to happen if this is confined to one street.
The churches just don't want the competition. They know that most of us would much rather sit in bar and drink than attend their services.
What a completely idiotic regulation.
I do not understand the logic of those bluenoses who would rather our downtown be a haven for drunken vagrants urinating in alleys and in front of businesses than be a vibrant entertainment district where folks can come into town and have a nice meal and a drink. I do not understand how a sidewalk cafe or restaurant would cause any kind of negative effect on nearby churches.
the Churches have not complained or raised any public objection.
Quote from: JeffreyS on July 04, 2011, 10:47:30 PM
the Churches have not complained or raised any public objection.
Not yet they haven't. Just wait until someone wants to open closer than the current limits allow.
Yes and the 500' limit we can work with.
Are those distances from churches straight-line, cutting across property lines - and city blocks; or does it follow a "walking route" via sidewalks? Could make a big difference.
Let's remember, the outdoor cafes are something different as Mark was saying. Getting the outdoor cafes approved probably would go through with no objection. Opening up a new bar too close to a church, there could be a problem. However again as Mark stated, they can request a waiver in that scenario.
Are those distances from churches straight-line, cutting across property lines - and city blocks; or does it follow a "walking route" via sidewalks? Could make a big difference.
Straight-line or "as the crow flys"
Also DDude is correct that a traditional restaurant would likely have an easier approval.
Let's not pile on the churches for something they haven't even done. The only opposition mentioned in the article, if it can be called that, is Don Redman saying he wants more information before deciding how he'll vote. Nothing about the churches themselves (or even Redman) necessarily opposing the expansion of the district.
Right I think people are looking for a negative here. What has happened is a proposal to expand the area where cafes and bars can have outdoor seating. That is a good thing. We need to be on the look out for people trying to kibosh the plan but not name calling in advance.
I think the only church within the 500 foot zone would be First Presbyterian 118 E Monroe. I believed they signed off on the sidewalk tables at London Bridge a few years ago and would probably be ok with the expanded E-Town. Just guessing here.
Quote from: Tacachale on July 05, 2011, 10:51:25 AM
Let's not pile on the churches for something they haven't even done. The only opposition mentioned in the article, if it can be called that, is Don Redman saying he wants more information before deciding how he'll vote. Nothing about the churches themselves (or even Redman) necessarily opposing the expansion of the district.
I guess some of us (well, me, anyway) are so used to city officials squashing anything that might be good for Downtown that the phrase "I need more information before I can decide" already sounds bad. It's like he enjoys wielding this little bit of power over the whole thing. There shouldn't really be a question - approve it, and address the issue if you have this deadly dangerous outside seating encroaching on any holy ground.
I haven't heard that any of the churches downtown have an issue with it. Not sure why they would. So let's go!
Quote from: Bativac on July 05, 2011, 11:16:56 AM
Quote from: Tacachale on July 05, 2011, 10:51:25 AM
Let's not pile on the churches for something they haven't even done. The only opposition mentioned in the article, if it can be called that, is Don Redman saying he wants more information before deciding how he'll vote. Nothing about the churches themselves (or even Redman) necessarily opposing the expansion of the district.
I guess some of us (well, me, anyway) are so used to city officials squashing anything that might be good for Downtown that the phrase "I need more information before I can decide" already sounds bad. It's like he enjoys wielding this little bit of power over the whole thing. There shouldn't really be a question - approve it, and address the issue if you have this deadly dangerous outside seating encroaching on any holy ground.
I haven't heard that any of the churches downtown have an issue with it. Not sure why they would. So let's go!
You said it with those two magic words - Don Redman. Now, it's time for me to pray to my god that we get to expand our entertainment district!
This is such simple common sense solution I'm sure it will never come
I am feeling very positive about the outcome here.