Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Dining Enclosure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
BZA denies Social Kitchen & Bar enclosure, rejects extra outdoor seats
Summary
The board denied requests to rebuild an outdoor enclosure and to keep more than 65 outdoor bistro seats at Social Kitchen & Bar (225 E. Maple). The board found insufficient unique property hardship to allow an enclosed year‑round structure.
The Board of Zoning Appeals denied a request from Social Kitchen & Bar to rebuild a preexisting nonconforming enclosed outdoor dining structure and to retain more than the ordinance cap on outdoor bistro seating.
Planning staff and the applicant described the existing patio as a preexisting legal nonconforming outdoor dining facility that the applicant proposes to replace with a new enclosure system. Planning Director Nate Dupuis told the board the applicant’s proposed new enclosure would add roughly 723 square feet of wall enclosure and that the facility currently totals 86 outdoor seats; the applicant reduced its request to keep 76 outdoor seats (11 over the 65-seat cap) after staff discussion.
Attorney Jacob Newman, representing the restaurant, said the project would “address safety, energy efficiency, and aesthetic concerns without altering the patio’s footprint” and that the business planned to invest in higher‑grade materials. Newman emphasized that the existing facility is legal nonconforming and argued the proposal would maintain the current footprint while improving the public realm.
Board members opposing relief said the ordinance intentionally prohibits enclosed outdoor dining in order to preserve active, visible street frontage, and they voiced concern that granting a variance would give one business a year‑round enclosure that other bistros are not allowed to install. One board member summed the reasoning for denial: "The city commission has decided that outdoor seating enclosed with isinglass isn't allowed. That's a decision they've already made. We aren't here to change the ordinance." The motion to deny carried on roll call (Carl Kona: yes; Ron Reddy: yes; Peter Aldo: no; Jason Kambaser: yes; Kevin Hart: no; Adam Hovneroff: yes), and the board chair noted the commission retains authority over the special land use permit the applicant still must obtain.
Outcome: Denial of the variance requests for both the enclosure and the seating count; the applicant may pursue other permitting pathways, including redesign without enclosure or take-up of rooftop seating consistent with the bistro definition.
