Antone's Nightclub
Permitting Details
RECEIVED Thu., April 23, 2009
Dear Editor,
That explanation and correction [“Off the Record,” Music, April 24] of last week's column [“Off the Record,” News, April 17] is still not accurate.
1) Cocktail lounge is a permitted use in the Central Business District and Downtown Mixed Use zoning districts. For instance, Stubb's location is in the CBD (is zoned CBD). Stubb's situation will be relatively easy to remedy, because conditional use approval is not required for cocktail lounge use in the CBD.
2) Cocktail lounge is also a permitted use if the location has commercial-liquor sales (CS-1) and is in the Waterfront Overlay. Those restaurants will also not be required to seek a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. For instance, Threadgill's location has CS-1 zoning and is in the Waterfront Overlay. Threadgill's situation will be relatively easy to remedy.
3) Outside of the CBD and DMU boundaries or with CS-1 zoning but outside of the Waterfront Overlay, cocktail lounge is a conditional use and must be approved by the Planning Commission, where public input and discussion will have an influence. Also note that this conditional use approval must be obtained prior to applying for the change of use permit.
The key here, and the really good news for the first two categories above, is that new code compliance requirements that normally would kick in due to the change of use can be waived, because cocktail lounge is a permitted use under either of those two conditions, therefore a change of use permit can be handled administratively. That eliminates the requirement for public input and discussion, and existing conditions can be approved without new code requirements kicking in.
Another key point, and somewhat bad news, is the conditional use application process has its own set of requirements (i.e., a site plan), and those requirements and costs, coupled with the requirements of a change of use permit – the time and cost required, along with associated code compliance costs for new parking, restrooms, accessibility improvements, and other requirements that kick in under a change of use permit application – and neighborhood resistance will make escaping the 70 decibel limit prohibitive to impossible for many restaurants.
As Council Member Mike Martinez points out, one size doesn't necessarily fit all situations, and this is, I agree, a good solution and a way to allow for discussion where it is needed and at the same time allow live outdoor music to thrive in the areas where it obviously should.
That explanation and correction [“Off the Record,” Music, April 24] of last week's column [“Off the Record,” News, April 17] is still not accurate.
1) Cocktail lounge is a permitted use in the Central Business District and Downtown Mixed Use zoning districts. For instance, Stubb's location is in the CBD (is zoned CBD). Stubb's situation will be relatively easy to remedy, because conditional use approval is not required for cocktail lounge use in the CBD.
2) Cocktail lounge is also a permitted use if the location has commercial-liquor sales (CS-1) and is in the Waterfront Overlay. Those restaurants will also not be required to seek a conditional use permit from the Planning Commission. For instance, Threadgill's location has CS-1 zoning and is in the Waterfront Overlay. Threadgill's situation will be relatively easy to remedy.
3) Outside of the CBD and DMU boundaries or with CS-1 zoning but outside of the Waterfront Overlay, cocktail lounge is a conditional use and must be approved by the Planning Commission, where public input and discussion will have an influence. Also note that this conditional use approval must be obtained prior to applying for the change of use permit.
The key here, and the really good news for the first two categories above, is that new code compliance requirements that normally would kick in due to the change of use can be waived, because cocktail lounge is a permitted use under either of those two conditions, therefore a change of use permit can be handled administratively. That eliminates the requirement for public input and discussion, and existing conditions can be approved without new code requirements kicking in.
Another key point, and somewhat bad news, is the conditional use application process has its own set of requirements (i.e., a site plan), and those requirements and costs, coupled with the requirements of a change of use permit – the time and cost required, along with associated code compliance costs for new parking, restrooms, accessibility improvements, and other requirements that kick in under a change of use permit application – and neighborhood resistance will make escaping the 70 decibel limit prohibitive to impossible for many restaurants.
As Council Member Mike Martinez points out, one size doesn't necessarily fit all situations, and this is, I agree, a good solution and a way to allow for discussion where it is needed and at the same time allow live outdoor music to thrive in the areas where it obviously should.
[Austin Powell replies: He's right. Thanks, Gary, for clarifying the issue once more and for saving “Off the Record” a large chuck of space in this week's issue.]