1.b) First Reading of Ordinance 24-23 of the City of Dunedin, Florida amending Section 107-32, Outdoor Dining Regulations, of the City of Dunedin Land Development Code to provide for outdoor hospitality and sidewalk cafe regulations and amending Appendix C, Development Charges and Impact Fees, to remove the fee for Conditional Use for outside dining and add a right-of-way use agreement fee.
1. Expanding ourdoor dining unitl 3AM for the entire city is not consistent with the comprehensive plan promise.
b. Some of the policies in our Comprehensive plan that are not consistent with the proposed expansion of the noise ordinance include:
i. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.1: “The City shall ensure that existing residential areas are protected from the incompatible non-residential activities.”
ii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.2. “Existing residential areas shall be located and designed to protect life and property from … manmade hazards such as excessive traffic, noise, and deterioration of structures.”
iii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.6.4. “The City shall establish provisions whereby neighborhood commercial development is … located convenient to residential areas, but not in a manner that will adversely affect the quality of life….”
For this and other reasons, I oppose. Shannon Smith
I support our local businesses and a lively downtown nightlife, and I fully support removing the vacate order. I moved to Dunedin two and a half years ago, and the liveliness of this town was a major factor in our decision to live here. I think most rational people would agree that anyone living downtown should expect and embrace the lively (and yes, sometimes noisy) nature of the area.
People moving to the downtown area should be advised by their realtors, landlords, and the city themselves of the nightlife that has been part of the city for the distant past. If they have made an informed decision to live amongst the nightlife, and still find the noise offensive, they should move to a location outside the nightlife areas. I am a relative newcomer to town, but I fully support the idea that newcomers should not move somewhere and expect the area to change to accommodate their particular likings and sensitivities. If a resident has not done the due diligence to experience the surroundings of their planned home, it is up to them to change locations to an area more suitable to their taste. Seems quite simple. Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on others. People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
The extension of outdoor hospitality hours after 11pm is crucial for businesses to remain competitive and to prevent the guests from leaving hours prior and traveling to surrounding communities that don’t have a “curfew”. Dog owners and/ or smokers would be banned after 11pm as these are outlawed on the inside of any business per the State. Any raucous sounds are addressed, and can be regulated, by the existing noise ordinance. Additionally, Sect 103-23.24.1 refers to "downtown core zoning" (where many of us have invested our life savings) allows for what we have built and operate.
And if you’re asking yourself, why was this “vacate” language not opposed the first time? it is because it was not in the proposed ordinance 11-38 (outdoor dining) Memorandum that went to the LPA on Nov 9th 2011. It was added at a commission meeting without prior notification to the Merchants. We all thought this outdoor dining applied to City right of way only.
I live at 950 Broadway. When I bought my condo in 2020, it was with full knowledge that breweries and bars/restaurants could continue serving and entertaining outside after 11:00. This is what makes Dunedin lively and growing. I support our restaurants and breweries, and I would expect city government that benefits from their success to do the same.
1. Expanding ourdoor dining unitl 3AM for the entire city is not consistent with the comprehensive plan promise.
b. Some of the policies in our Comprehensive plan that are not consistent with the proposed expansion of the noise ordinance include:
i. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.1: “The City shall ensure that existing residential areas are protected from the incompatible non-residential activities.”
ii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.5.2. “Existing residential areas shall be located and designed to protect life and property from … manmade hazards such as excessive traffic, noise, and deterioration of structures.”
iii. Comprehensive Plan Policy 2.6.4. “The City shall establish provisions whereby neighborhood commercial development is … located convenient to residential areas, but not in a manner that will adversely affect the quality of life….”
For this and other reasons, I oppose. Shannon Smith
I support our local businesses and a lively downtown nightlife, and I fully support removing the vacate order. I moved to Dunedin two and a half years ago, and the liveliness of this town was a major factor in our decision to live here. I think most rational people would agree that anyone living downtown should expect and embrace the lively (and yes, sometimes noisy) nature of the area.
People moving to the downtown area should be advised by their realtors, landlords, and the city themselves of the nightlife that has been part of the city for the distant past. If they have made an informed decision to live amongst the nightlife, and still find the noise offensive, they should move to a location outside the nightlife areas. I am a relative newcomer to town, but I fully support the idea that newcomers should not move somewhere and expect the area to change to accommodate their particular likings and sensitivities. If a resident has not done the due diligence to experience the surroundings of their planned home, it is up to them to change locations to an area more suitable to their taste. Seems quite simple. Poor planning on your part does not necessitate an emergency on others. People need to take responsibility for their own choices.
Oppose removing vacate outdoor
The extension of outdoor hospitality hours after 11pm is crucial for businesses to remain competitive and to prevent the guests from leaving hours prior and traveling to surrounding communities that don’t have a “curfew”. Dog owners and/ or smokers would be banned after 11pm as these are outlawed on the inside of any business per the State. Any raucous sounds are addressed, and can be regulated, by the existing noise ordinance. Additionally, Sect 103-23.24.1 refers to "downtown core zoning" (where many of us have invested our life savings) allows for what we have built and operate.
And if you’re asking yourself, why was this “vacate” language not opposed the first time? it is because it was not in the proposed ordinance 11-38 (outdoor dining) Memorandum that went to the LPA on Nov 9th 2011. It was added at a commission meeting without prior notification to the Merchants. We all thought this outdoor dining applied to City right of way only.
I live at 950 Broadway. When I bought my condo in 2020, it was with full knowledge that breweries and bars/restaurants could continue serving and entertaining outside after 11:00. This is what makes Dunedin lively and growing. I support our restaurants and breweries, and I would expect city government that benefits from their success to do the same.