Newsletter about the Moratorium Workshop on November 4, 2008

This was a review of Text Amendments, staff reports. and maps of the present situation as far as the Drinking Establishments go here in Hickory. (I rushed this before going to work and so I have now gone back and edited it properly)

Brian Frazier talked about the current situation and said that currently Drinking Establishments are permitted by right here in Hickory. Basically every other enterprise needs a special use permit to operate within certain zoned areas, but not drinking establishments.

The proposed ammendment would require Drinking Establishments to get special approval in areas zoned C-1, C-4, and C-5, and would not be allowed in NC-1. NC-2, or C-2. Under the proposed ammendment, 1400 tax map parcels will be available for proposed drinking establishments.

Sally Fox seemed to be very concerned about the Green Park corridor and how this proposed ammendment would effect bars in her area. Attorney John Crone emphasized that there would have to be a Planning Board Evidentiary (evidence, documents, & Testimony) Hearing representing the neighbors, that the council would have to abide by the rulings of that Planning Board hearing, and that any appeals would be heard in Superior Court. Jill Patton was concerned with the relation of drinking establishments to traffic patterns and parking. She believes that this proposed change will give neighbors a fair hearing.

Brad Lail offered that someone had told him that the proposed definition of Drinking Establishment is not consistent with the current ALE standard (which states that 30% food must be served in order for an establishment to not be considered a Drinking Establishment). Brian Frazier said the 50% level was (the city's) definition of the food-beverage threshold and was recommended by legal council. Councilman Lail asked what he meant be legal council? Mr. Frazier stated that it was Parker-Poe (legal firm) he was referring to. Mr. Frazier further stated that their (city staff's) position has always been the 50% threshold.
Mr. Lail stated that his problem with 50% is that it might exclude businesses that might want to locate in areas that we (the city) might want to stimulate with young people and activities. Mayor Wright stated that these businesses still have the right to apply for the special permit. They can go through due process and votes to see if they get it, to see if it is in fact something that adds value. Mr. Lail said that he doesn't understand the reasoning between 30% (ALE) and 50% (Hickory).

Mr. Frazier then addressed the issue of the city's Pedestrian Overlay District, which automatically allows a 50% reduction in the amount of parking needed by a business to operate under code. Under the proposal, The city wants bars to submit an Alternative Parking Plan to the Planning Director to gain an additional 20% parking reduction. Mick Berry stated that this applies to every business, not just a particular use.

Brad Lail asked a question of whether any change of ownership of a business on Union Square (Downtown District) would require submission of a parking plan under the new ordinance? Mr. Frazier said that yes they would have to prove that there was adequate parking, then said no if it were a similar type of business they would not. Mr. Lail then asked in the case of Drinking Establishment, Yes? Mr Frazier stated that it was a good question. Andrea Surratt said that she believes that they would require Special Permit. Mr. Leonetti showed where any C-1 zoned area does not require Off Street Parking. Mr. Lail then stated that he is worried about unintended consequences.

City Manager Mick Berry wanted the issue addressed as to how many of the 14 establishments in question would be effected by the issue of Grandfathering, because of transfer of ownership based upon current zoning. Mr. Frazier believes it to be less that 50%. Mr, Meisner wants the issue of inheritence of these businesses addressed. Mr. Crone wanted this carried further to the issue of what is the public policy rationale for putting drinking establishments at a higher bar? Mayor Wright wants to look further into this issue.

A great deal of debate took place next on the issue of 30% vs 50% Food to Beverage ratio. The Mayor and Mrs. Fox seemed deadset against lowering the ratio to the ALE standard.

Mr. Lail wanted to address whether the policy(s) is consistent with a vision of Hickory moving more toward a service industry type city. Mr. Meisner stated that he could foresee a battle coming between retail and services. Charlotte has moved more toward entertainment Downtown. Much debate followed as to whether this was good or not. Sally Fox stated that she believes there has to be a higher bar for our Downtown. The council seemed to come to a consensus that we need to do a comparison between ourselves and Burlington, which is similar demographically to Hickory.

Mrs. Fox stated that she didn't want to shut out information, but she didn't want to get caught up in other things like vision. We have a goal here (I presume of this proposed ordinance). Brad Lail wanted to know what the goal is, if we don't consider vision? Mrs. Fox stated that she thought they were establishing a process for reviewing drinking establishments. We (Fox further stated) pretty much know sitting at the table what our vision will be for our neighborhood core and somewhat what our vision is gonna be for downtown.

Mick Berry said that from a technical standpoint they have an obligation to stick to the ordinance that created the moratorium. The moratorium is in response to the public safety issue. Ms. Surratt brought up the issue that maybe downtown should just allow bars by right in C-1 only.

Mr. Crone stated that he liked the Special Use concept for Downtown, because some Condos might be going up in a section and a nightclub would have to apply for a permit to be next to it, something like that may devalue the property. He did state that if they meet the criteria, they meet the criteria. Mrs. Fox stated that these drinking establishments have become a drag on the area. She once again brought up that Green Park corridor is screaming for revilization. She says the problem is that we (the council) haven't raised the bar. She bemoaned over and over again "it has been a drag" several times directly to Mr. Lail. Mr. Lail stated that he has heard from folks that it is also an issue Downtown.

The City Manager and Council came to an agreement to have a staff presentation to council at the next meeting. Mayor Wright said he would like to encourage everyone, if you think of other info, then please report to city staff.

The Hounds Opinion: I believe that it is a good idea to regulate where these establishments are established to a degree, but let's hope that we aren't going to stifle future proposed entertainment establishments in doing so. We need to, without question, keep these establishments out of neighborhoods. We can all agree to that.

I don't think Mrs. Fox is consistent in what she has to say on this subject. She sounds totally negative on this whole subject, frankly this whole discussion has been negative. She says that the issue has nothing to do with vision, that the issue has been a drag on Green Park, and that the people at the table already have a pretty good idea of what the vision for the neighborhood core and downtown should be. Sounds like she has decided for council what the vision for her personal interests should be. I wonder how the rest of council really feels about this.

Brad Lail seems to have the best vision on this issue. We have to be flexible when it comes to issues of proposed businesses. His vision sounds like a vision of an upscale modern Hickory, which welcomes professional adults. He doesn't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater just because we have a few establishments with some rebel patrons. And he is worried about the unintended consequences of this Moratorium (and Proposed Ordinances) on Drinking Establishments.

I honestly think that Mrs. Fox has some control issues. The city should not have (and should not seek to have) total locked down control over every aspect of our lives. The Hound has made it's voice clear on this issue. The current issue can best be dealt with by pulling these bar owners in and having a forum on this issue. The city's position should be that these bars will get a couple of free Police calls per month, followed by fees imposed on excessive calls to Police.

This is a much more reasonable response. The harsh, authoritarian approach to this issue speaks poorly about how some members of City Council want to impose their will, rather than communicate with citizens and build consensus on solutions.