Controversial bar, club zoning changes advance
Would update definitions and clarify uses, standards
“We want to have a vibrant downtown, but we don’t want to cross that line into being a nuisance.”
Vice Mayor Jen Ahearn-Koch
The Sarasota City Commission narrowly voted to advance a controversial zoning text amendment for downtown bars and nightclubs following more than three hours of debate.
According to supporters, the amendment could yield smoother working relations between local businesses and city staff. Opponents fear it could instead usher in urban growth that knocks off the already-delicate balance between downtown nightlife and residents.
The commission passed a pair of ordinances attached to the amendment on first reading at Monday’s meeting. The first, which updates the definitions of bars, restaurants and nightclubs, passed 3-2 with Vice Mayor Jen Ahearn-Koch and Commissioner Debbie Trice in dissent. The second, which clarifies the permissible uses and standards for each establishment, passed 4-1 with Ahearn-Koch in dissent.
The final motions included several alterations. A proposed expansion of downtown’s exemption district — which requires “alcoholic beverage establishments” across the city to be at least 500 feet from the nearest bar, nightclub, or liquor store unless it lies in the downtown exemption area — was scrapped, and the definition of a restaurant was changed to include establishments that prepare meals off-site.
The agenda item was the focal point of a particularly tense meeting, which saw commissioners also discuss civility and respectful engagement after a print of a racist Facebook post aimed at Commissioner Kyle Battie was found in
an envelope outside Corona Cigar Co. The user credited with making the post, as well as several meeting attendees and residents, contended that it was photoshopped, and her name was falsely attached.
Attempt for clarity incites controversy
Development staff proposed the zoning text amendment to clarify what qualifies as a bar, nightclub and restaurant, citing confusion among business owners and city staff regarding current definitions as a primary reason for the proposed change. Proponents argue clearer definitions and standardized guidelines would allow the city to better regulate these establishments.
Nightclubs, in particular, with definitions tied to state liquor license requirements, are difficult to manage because the guidelines for what they can and can’t do are unclear. Commissioner Erik Arroyo, who made both motions, said a streamlined definition would solve these issues.
“The problem is we have such a loose interpretation,” Arroyo said. “We figure out what a nightclub is, and everything else falls into place.”
The amendment received full signoff from the Development Review Committee last August, and the split Planning Board voted to recommend its approval to the commission in September. An initial reading of the amendment in November ended with the commission sending the amendment back to a workshop with development staff in December.
The amendment has sparked significant controversy, with opponents contesting a potential increase of bars and nightclubs downtown.
Indoor bars require major conditional use approval, but the amendment moves require only minor conditional use approval. It also proposes allowing outdoor bars — which are currently permitted only as accessories to hotels, motels, and private clubs — to operate as independent entities with major conditional use approval.
Indoor versus outdoor bars
The amendment originally proposed indoor bars as by-right establishments and outdoor bars as requiring minor conditional use approval. Development scaled up the approval guidelines following the Dec. 5 commission workshop, which saw more than three hours of discussion on the guidelines.
The change to approval guidelines wasn’t enough to settle the indoor versus outdoor bar debate, which continued throughout Monday’s meeting and even swayed commissioner votes.
The amendment separates indoor and outdoor bars based on the location of the physical counter where drinks are made and served. An indoor bar includes a bar that’s enclosable with four walls and a roof (though not necessarily enclosed at all times), and an outdoor bar does not.
Ultimately, the suffix — “-able” as opposed to “-ed” — is where Trice drew the line on the first ordinance approving these new definitions. The language gives too much leeway for outdoor bars to qualify as indoor bars simply because they could be enclosed, she said, which might heighten volume and activity downtown to unacceptable levels.
“If their windows are open or their garage doors are open, they are in effect operating as outdoor bars,” Trice said. “There is no real boundary between indoors and outdoors.”
Ahearn-Koch also objected to defining a bar as indoor or outdoor by the location of its counter. An indoor bar by the amendment’s definition could, in practice, operate as an outdoor bar with outdoor seating, she said.
The definitions, Ahearn-Koch said, should instead reflect where patrons gather to prevent this kind of confusion. She also advocated for earlier closing times for outdoor bars to mitigate potential disturbances to residences.
“The activity, where things are happening, that’s going to determine the impact,” Ahearn-Koch said. “We want to have a vibrant downtown, but we don’t want to cross that line into being a nuisance.”
But rejecting the amendment at the urging of downtown residents could, in turn, harm potential businesses, Arroyo said. Quoting “Parks and Recreation” character Ron Swanson, he said as long as the business doesn’t violate residents’ rights, its operations shouldn’t be of concern.
“As long as you have your property rights and your own personal rights and they’re not interfering with anybody else’s property rights or personal rights, there should be no friction,” Arroyo said.
The amendment will go before the commission Feb. 20 for a second reading.
Contact Herald-Tribune Growth and Development Reporter Heather Bushman at hbushman@gannett.com. Follow her on Twitter @hmb_1013.