2.b) 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.
I am NOT in favor of forcing business clientele to go inside at 11:00. There is already a noise ordinance; this is all that is needed to keep from bothering residents. Additional restrictions to force citizens indoors against their will and to keep businesses from using their full facilities when there is no noise unnecessarily restricts rights of both citizens and businesses and adversely impacts income of local employees. It’s effectively a curfew which is an intrusion, and, I fail to see what problem it’s solving. Laws/ordinances should be minimal and specific to a problem. If someone is sitting quietly outside, a curfew is nothing but an unnecessary restriction of rights on where you are allowed to be. If someone isn’t quiet, the noise ordinance should cover it; if there’s some other issue, address that problem specifically - not with a broad reaching curfew.
Please keep Dunedin available to people later in the evenings and not turn it into a sleepy town like any other city. if youve moved into downtown its because of its enjoyability and all the fun things it has to offer, especiallyin the heart of the city.
As a life-long resident, 66 years, and a former business owner who spent 20 years helping to build the downtown into what it is today, I hope the notice to vacate will not be enforced when the business complies with the rule. I completely support the businesses of downtown and hope they can continue to thrive as they should. The city manager clarification of sound ordinance is correct as I was on the original drafting committee for that ordinance.
I would encourage everyone to consider the purpose and intent of the Dunedin Redevelopment Area District and it’s DC (Downtown Core) zoning designation per 103-23.24, when attempting to restrict the freedom of action needed and enjoyed by Downtown Core hospitality businesses in order for them to earn a return on their investment.
The zoning purpose and enticement is to provide a maximum use of the property in order to obtain a return on investment.
The purpose encourages Residential mixed use but does not call for those uses to offset the primary objective.
Residential Development has 103-23.20 “DR” (DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL) to rely on for its purpose.
We feel that any time restriction on the use of outdoor customer areas is not justified as there are Local, State and Federal laws in-place including the 2008 sound ordinance.
Any curfew will cast a negative view of Dunedin.
We do not need potential customers to stay away or leave early due to misconceptions.
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.
The Outdoor Dining Ordinance was originally intended for ROW (right of way) use of public sidewalks and never intended for private property. The original model for the Outdoor Dining Ordinance was Any necessary restrictions to private property outside of bathrooms and parking are already covered in the land development code and should be respected. This sentiment is echo'd by the City itself through BRC conversations/minutes.
As a born in Dunedin resident who has lived in my current home for 20 years, I oppose the removal of the vacate requirement after 11pm (midnight on weekends). Many of these businesses have opened in longtime residential areas and the residents deserve to continue to have quiet over night.
As a Dunedin resident who has been a part of this community for 10 years, I would like to express my support for local businesses in allowing outdoor dining after 11:00 during the week and after midnight on weekends. I do not believe the notice to vacate should be enforced when a business complies with the 65DB rule, as it would hurt tourism and negatively impact our local economy. I hope the City Manager will be given the opportunity to clarify the existing sound ordinance. Thank you.
I am NOT in favor of forcing business clientele to go inside at 11:00. There is already a noise ordinance; this is all that is needed to keep from bothering residents. Additional restrictions to force citizens indoors against their will and to keep businesses from using their full facilities when there is no noise unnecessarily restricts rights of both citizens and businesses and adversely impacts income of local employees. It’s effectively a curfew which is an intrusion, and, I fail to see what problem it’s solving. Laws/ordinances should be minimal and specific to a problem. If someone is sitting quietly outside, a curfew is nothing but an unnecessary restriction of rights on where you are allowed to be. If someone isn’t quiet, the noise ordinance should cover it; if there’s some other issue, address that problem specifically - not with a broad reaching curfew.
I oppose any changes to the current 11 PM closure. Do we really want to have more drunks on our streets?
Please keep Dunedin available to people later in the evenings and not turn it into a sleepy town like any other city. if youve moved into downtown its because of its enjoyability and all the fun things it has to offer, especiallyin the heart of the city.
As a life-long resident, 66 years, and a former business owner who spent 20 years helping to build the downtown into what it is today, I hope the notice to vacate will not be enforced when the business complies with the rule. I completely support the businesses of downtown and hope they can continue to thrive as they should. The city manager clarification of sound ordinance is correct as I was on the original drafting committee for that ordinance.
I would encourage everyone to consider the purpose and intent of the Dunedin Redevelopment Area District and it’s DC (Downtown Core) zoning designation per 103-23.24, when attempting to restrict the freedom of action needed and enjoyed by Downtown Core hospitality businesses in order for them to earn a return on their investment.
The zoning purpose and enticement is to provide a maximum use of the property in order to obtain a return on investment.
The purpose encourages Residential mixed use but does not call for those uses to offset the primary objective.
Residential Development has 103-23.20 “DR” (DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL) to rely on for its purpose.
We feel that any time restriction on the use of outdoor customer areas is not justified as there are Local, State and Federal laws in-place including the 2008 sound ordinance.
Any curfew will cast a negative view of Dunedin.
We do not need potential customers to stay away or leave early due to misconceptions.
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.
The Outdoor Dining Ordinance was originally intended for ROW (right of way) use of public sidewalks and never intended for private property. The original model for the Outdoor Dining Ordinance was Any necessary restrictions to private property outside of bathrooms and parking are already covered in the land development code and should be respected. This sentiment is echo'd by the City itself through BRC conversations/minutes.
Oppose!
As a born in Dunedin resident who has lived in my current home for 20 years, I oppose the removal of the vacate requirement after 11pm (midnight on weekends). Many of these businesses have opened in longtime residential areas and the residents deserve to continue to have quiet over night.
As a Dunedin resident who has been a part of this community for 10 years, I would like to express my support for local businesses in allowing outdoor dining after 11:00 during the week and after midnight on weekends. I do not believe the notice to vacate should be enforced when a business complies with the 65DB rule, as it would hurt tourism and negatively impact our local economy. I hope the City Manager will be given the opportunity to clarify the existing sound ordinance. Thank you.