Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Outdoor Seating topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Planning board tables outdoor-seating rules after questions about noise, ADA and enforcement
Summary
Staff proposed Ordinance 17-08 to standardize outdoor seating contracts, safety reviews and ADA compliance; board members and residents raised concerns about subjective design standards, noise and sidewalk congestion and asked staff to refine rules before the board forwards recommendations.
Planning staff presented Ordinance 17-08 to create a standardized process for approving outdoor seating for restaurants on private property, public sidewalks and parking lots. The proposal would require a contract, a safety review, ADA compliance and buffers to keep patrons safe from vehicle areas.
A staff presenter summarized the goal: to encourage outdoor seating while addressing hazards such as blocked sidewalks, ADA access, lighting and proximity to vehicle areas. "The intent is to encourage outdoor seating by providing a standardized process, at the same time addressing any safety hazards or issues to that point," the presenter said.
Board members and attendees questioned how subjective standards in the draft—terms like "quality design" and "decorative"—would be interpreted and enforced. One board member noted that existing codes already address noise, outdoor lighting (including turtle-related light restrictions) and similar issues, and asked whether the new ordinance should point to those existing code sections or include more objective thresholds.
Staff said the ordinance is meant in part to regulate "after-the-fact" seating that wasn't captured in original site-plan approvals and that some discretion would remain for staff to apply the intent of the ordinance to varied circumstances. The presenter said existing seating established by site-plan approvals would generally be exempt, while ad-hoc seating in the right-of-way or parking lots could be subject to new agreements and safety reviews.
Members of the board and public also raised operational concerns: narrow sidewalks and competing pedestrian uses downtown, possible higher permit or fee structures for restaurants that use public spaces, and the difficulty of enforcing noise and temporary furniture rules. The board asked staff to consider separate standards for private-property seating and public-right-of-way seating and to think about reasonable permit processes and fees.
The board did not take a final recommendation to the commission. After public comment and discussion, members voted to table Ordinance 17-08 so staff can incorporate board feedback and return with revised language.
Next steps: staff will refine the ordinance to clarify applicability, consider more objective design or operational thresholds where appropriate, and return the revised draft to the board.
