Pittsburg pub owner presses commission to revise outdoor-entertainment rules after Greenway plan

PITTSBURG, Kan. — Brian Hanson, owner of McCarthy’s Pub and Grub, told the Pittsburg City Commission on May 13 that a February ordinance allowing outdoor entertainment and recreation areas to admit people under 21 gives new venues an unfair advantage over existing bars and taverns.

Hanson, speaking during public comments, said the Greenway — a proposed outdoor-entertainment site — is advertising three to four days of operation weekly through October and “that’s just a normal bar at that point.” He added, “This is a direct, competition matter.”

The commission and staff exchanged questions and clarifications over roughly an hour. Darren (city staff) said he had discussed the issue with Hanson and noted enforcement falls primarily to the police department. Kim (city staff) explained the ordinance’s definition: an outdoor entertainment and recreational area is “wholly or partially outside of a fully enclosed permanent structure” and is “used primarily for seating, dining, broadcast, recreational, and live entertainment, and enclosed by a permanent perimeter barrier.” Kim also said that, in practice, “if people come into the patio, ... they could enter that. They just wouldn't be where it comes in is, I think the question was, a restroom.”

Hanson described operational constraints at his business tied to existing liquor rules: he said his staff regularly checks IDs, that frequent police bar checks had unsettled customers, and that under current city rules an under-21 person inside his brick-and-mortar premises could cause him to face fines or risk his liquor license. He said he would consider converting to a dedicated outdoor recreation area if required to match the Greenway’s privileges but said that would require investments such as restrooms and fencing.

Commissioners pressed staff for clarity about how the ordinance applies. One commissioner said the rules were not written to exclude existing businesses and urged Hanson to consider whether his patio area already meets the ordinance’s criteria. Another said the commission should re-examine the ordinance’s language if it creates unintended differences between older businesses and new outdoor venues.

Kim told the commission the ordinance is similar to approaches used by other cities for food-truck lots and outdoor event spaces and that staff and police review such requests as part of the city’s permitting and special-events processes. Darren suggested staff and police should work with affected business owners to identify enforcement concerns and determine whether “tweaks” are needed.

No formal action or change to the ordinance was taken at the meeting. Commissioners asked staff to review enforcement practices and the ordinance language and return with recommendations if revisions are warranted.

The discussion also included several operational details and constraints Hanson raised: his preference to admit only local IDs for under-21 patrons, the practical difficulties of policing guests who move between indoor and outdoor spaces, and his view that bringing some patronage indoors would require additional security and facilities.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized they were not trying to single out any one business and said the city will explore options before proposing ordinance changes.

Plans and next steps: staff were asked to review the ordinance and coordinate with police and business owners; the commission did not set a deadline for a follow-up report.