Dancing Fox expansion approved
The Lodi Planning Commission unanimously approved a special use permit and site plan review for the Dancing Fox expansion during its meeting held Wednesday night in Carnegie Forum.
Commissioner Dave Kirsten recused himself from the discussion and vote due to a conflict of interest. Kirsten owns property at 115 S. School St., which is within the sphere of influence.
Dancing Fox owner Greg Lewis plans to remove the parking lot adjacent to the restaurant, located on the south end of School Street in Downtown Lodi, to make room for a new two-story addition that will include a courtyard, outside bar, distillery, brewery, seating, a mezzanine for storage and private office space. With the expansion, Lewis said, customers can expect more beverage options and barbecue items offered in the outside bar area. There will also be live music.
“We’ve been needing a bigger tasting room than what we have right now,” Lewis said at the meeting, pointing out that currently, the restaurant portion of the establishment is the first thing customers see when they walk in. Many people, he said — including those who have been coming to the restaurant for years — don’t realize that they have a tasting room. “We wanted the beer and the wine to be more front and center, so that’s what this new building is going to be. It’s going to be more about that than food.”
Lewis said currently their sales ratio is about 25 percent alcohol to 75 percent food. He would like to see alcohol sales increase because there’s more money there, he said.
In addition to adding liquor to their craft beer and wine options, Lewis is also planning to provide natural sodas for those who prefer a non-alcoholic beverage. He also informed the commission that he planned to bottle these sodas, as well as his beers and wines, using a recently purchased a state of the art bottling line that will be installed over at Old Ice House Cellars.
Even though the planning commission gave its approval, some residents voiced concerns during the meeting.
“I’m a third-generation Lodian from a small business family. I’m a supporter of independent businesses one of which is the Dancing Fox,” Margaret Kaehler said. “Their wine, food and baked bread is excellent. I do approve of the expansion, but I’m saddened that there will be less parking available, of which the most important to me is the handicapped spaces that are in their lot which will now be eliminated. If you have a handicap yourself or take care of a handicapped person, you will understand my concern. When you find a handicapped spot to park, it’s like finding gold and to lose those spaces is very unfortunate. It just makes things more difficult and hard to go into the business.”
Kaehler ultimately requested that the city provide more parking for those with disabilities.
Lodi Senior Planner Craig Hoffman informed Kaehler and the commission that there were disabled parking spaces in the parking structure located on Sacramento Street and a parking lot located about 100 feet from Dancing Fox. He added that last summer, the city updated two of its parking lots along Church Street to meet ADA standards and has provided funding for disabled parking spaces.
“I do understand the concern,” Hoffman said. “... We do try to space handicap parking stalls throughout all of Downtown and it is a concern for the city and part of that is the money that we’ve spent on upgrading our parking lots.”
He explained that the building code does not require the Dancing Fox to provide off-street parking.
Glenn Glissman, owner of Security Lock and Key, located at 209 S. Sacramento St., was also concerned by the parking situation.
“When I built (my business) 10 years ago, the city required me to provide offstreet parking,” he said. “They required me to put in seven off-street parking spots, with one of them being handicap. What has changed since then?”
He found the difference in requirements troubling, saying that having to install a parking lot prevented him from construction a bigger building.
Hoffman and the commissioners were unable to answer Glissman’s question, stating that the issue dates back before any of them were on the planning commission or, in Hoffman’s case, was senior planner. However, Hoffman did inform Glissman that if he wanted to expand at this point, he was free to do so.