Sidewalk Dining Question and Answer Session

Friday, July 1, 2005

City Commission Room

Attendees:  Chuck Carroll, Nick Carroll, Hubbard Collinsworth, Jerry Neverve

City Staff:  Sheila Stogsdill, Lynne Braddock Zollner, Michelle Leininger, Jessica Martin, Lesley Rigney, and Toni Wheeler

Lynne Braddock Zollner summarized the history of the guidelines for sidewalk dining areas.  (See Memorandum dated June 7, 2005.)  She then went through the proposed guidelines, highlighting the changes that HRC is recommending.  The changes include:

1. Adding a paragraph after the enumerated goals and purposes, describing the documents that must be submitted with a sidewalk dining area application form, and describing the application review process.

2. Paragraph numbered 1 under the section, “Usable Sidewalk Dining Area,” is changed to require the dining area to maintain a minimum of six (6) feet “or half (1/2) the width, whichever is greater, unobstructed sidewalk” between the dining area and obstructions.  Language is added to this paragraph which would allow consideration to be given providing for a minimum of five feet width on local streets such as 7^th Street, 8^th Street, etc.

3. Paragraph numbered 3 under the section, “Elevation and Other Design Considerations” is modified to give examples of reasons the City may have for requiring a sidewalk dining area to suspend operation and clear the sidewalk.

4. Paragraph number 4 of the same section authorizes barriers and railings to be made of “ornamental metal” or “other compatible materials” in addition to wrought iron.

5. Paragraph numbered 7 of the same section prohibits umbrellas and outdoor heaters in sidewalk dining areas.

6. Paragraph numbered 2 under the section, “Operation of Sidewalk Dining Area” prohibits advertising signage in the dining area except for the name of the establishment on chairs or tables as approved by the City.

7. Paragraph numbered 5 of the same section clarifies the areas the licensee is responsible for maintaining.

8. A paragraph is added in the same section requiring the sidewalk dining area be managed to prevent stormwater pollution.

After summarizing the changes, Zollner agreed to take questions regarding the guidelines.  Jerry Neverve first inquired about the new paragraph concerning stormwater pollution.  Specifically, he asked how the City Commission will apply this provision.  Neverve referenced a recent City Commission decision to remove from Free State Brewing Company’s site plan, a condition prohibiting surface cleaning water from being discharged to the storm sewer.  Neverve stated that the City Commission should be consistent on this matter.  Sheila Stogsdill indicated that the Commission had struck the requirement for a note on the site plan and that the applicant would still need to comply with the applicable requirements of the City Code.

Neverve stated that he would like to have the option of having umbrellas in sidewalk dining areas.  He said he thought people liked the look of umbrellas in café areas.  In his opinion, umbrellas exude friendliness.  He also said umbrellas are far less expensive than a permanent awning.  Mr. Chuck Carroll relayed that he recently purchased an awning for an establishment in Salina and it cost nearly $5,000.  Neverve said he preferred to purchase a few $100 umbrellas.  He also commented that he has seen umbrellas in sidewalk dining areas in other historic districts in the country.

Zollner explained the HRC’s reasoning for excluding umbrellas.  She stated the main reason for excluding umbrellas was the visual impact they have on the store front.  Umbrellas interfere with the ability to see into the building.  Another significant reason for prohibiting umbrellas was concerns about enforcement.  Guidelines would have to be established addressing the size, weighting, and appearance of the umbrellas and then an enforcement officer will have to inspect, measure, and enforce the umbrella standards.  Another factor the HRC considered in banning umbrellas was the concern that umbrellas may encroach upon the sidewalk area reserved for pedestrians and may pose a danger to pedestrians. 

Neverve stated that he would like to have the ability to install moveable heaters in a sidewalk dining area for the comfort of his patrons during cool and cold months.  There was a general discussion of heater types.  Neverve stated the heater he has in mind is used by establishments on the Plaza in Kansas City.  Nick Carroll also cited locations where these heaters are used on private patios. 

The HRC’s recommendations concerning the railings presented additional concerns to Neverve.  He objected to the requirement that railings be removable.  Neverve expressed concern that removable railings could be removed without his authorization and thrown through the windows of his establishment.  Removable railings are also more costly, according to Neverve.  He also stated that removable railings anchored into the sidewalk will contribute to the deterioration of the sidewalk.  The 36-inch height restriction was also unpopular with Neverve.  He stated he would like the ability to install a decorative metal railing up to 43 inches in height because a railing at 43 inches is optimal for his patrons to lean against and upon which to set a beverage.  He reported that the railing in front of Papa Keno’s Pizzeria is over 36 inches in height. 

The discussion then turned to the additional items identified by the HRC for City Commission consideration. 

Chuck Carroll stated his opinion that the $3.50 per square foot fee the City charged for use of the sidewalk was high.  He asked whether the City has analyzed the income potential from this fee.  He estimated that if 20 sidewalk dining areas were approved they could generate $10,000 in revenue per year, and $100,000 in ten years.  City staff replied that they knew of no such analysis.  Zollner indicated that research showed that communities often set the rental fees low to encourage a new program and then raised fees when a program was viable.  The HRC had simply indicated that the Commission may wish to discuss the fees in relation to the use of the public right-of-way and associated costs.

Neverve is not in favor of establishing a maximum number of sidewalk dining areas per block.  He said setting a limit per block was unfair.

Hubbard Collinsworth asked how the proposed guidelines would be affected by the ordinance currently being considered for adoption relating to the City’s right-of-way.  (Ordinance No. 7892 makes it unlawful to intentionally obstruct traffic on a street, sidewalk or other City right-of-way.)  Staff replied that Ordinance No. 7892 is not contrary to the guidelines proposed by the HRC. 

Neverve asked when the guidelines would be placed on the City Commission’s agenda.  Zollner replied that the staff report and the proposed guidelines had been placed on the June 14, 2005 City Commission agenda but were pulled from the agenda.  She stated that she did not know when they will appear on the City Commission’s agenda.  Sheila Stogsdill stated it was unlikely the HRC guidelines would be on a City Commission agenda before July 19, 2005.  Neverve stated his wish that the guidelines be addressed on July 19^th because he is planning to attend the meeting. 

The session concluded.