Downtown bars want more outside seating

[duvaldude08]

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?

[marksjax]

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

[comncense]

Yeah, what ever happened to the Orchid Ultra Lounge project? Another great idea that never came to fruition.

[duvaldude08]

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!

[Kiva]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.

[Jaxson]

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. 

[JeffreyS]

the Churches have not complained or raised any public objection.

[Ralph W]

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.

[JeffreyS]

Yes and the 500' limit we can work with.

[Charles Hunter]

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.

[duvaldude08]

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.

[marksjax]

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.

[Tacachale]

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.

[JeffreyS]

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.