Laserfiche WebLink
bars will allow for control and further regulation of such places <br />(such as regulating hours of operation). <br />*Ultimate Pizza: Restaurants where beer and wine are consumed on <br />site should be treated less stringently than bars. Churches are <br />allowed to locate in commercial districts and thereby restrict <br />future retail or restaurant uses involving alcoholic beverages that <br />otherwise would be allowed. There is no inherent incompatibility <br />between churches and restaurants that serve beer and wine since, at <br />a previous location in a commercial district in the county, The <br />Ultimate Pizza was located next to a church (Immanuel Baptist) for <br />some time, without incompatibility problems. <br />•Various Church Representatives: Stated that relaxing distance <br />regulations will not increase control but will lead to more <br />problems, including bad influences on minors and potential safety <br />problems involving patrons under the influence of alcohol. Also, <br />treating restaurants more leniently could create a -loophole for <br />defacto bars that provide food and operate under the guise of a <br />"restaurant". Establishments selling and serving alcoholic <br />beverages could proliferate around churches that are in or near <br />commercial zoning districts if separation distances are decreased. <br />One church representative stated that making a distinctivon between <br />bars and restaurants could be acceptable..- <br />At the end of the meeting, staff concluded that there appeared to <br />be significant opposition to decreasing the current separation <br />distance standards in return for any alternative st d <br />distinction between restauraz <br />would report these matters <br />direction on whether or not <br />regulations. Persons present <br />their names and addresses if <br />about staff's report back to <br />list, staff has contacted t <br />regarding the Board's consider <br />5, 1996 meeting. <br />an and or <br />is and bars. Staff stated that it <br />:o the Board and seek the Board's <br />to pursue changes to the existing <br />at the meeting were asked to provide <br />they wanted staff to contact them <br />the Board. Based on the resulting <br />hese and other interested parties <br />.ation of this issue at its November <br />After the October 11th discussion/input meeting, the Sheriff <br />informed planning staff that the Sheriff's Office is no longer <br />pursuing regulation changes due to a lack of community support ( see <br />attachment #4). Separate from the Sheriff's Office request, Ms. <br />Fothergill still wants the Board to consider regulation changes <br />that would establish more lenient standards for restaurants (as <br />opposed to bars) or that would eliminate separation distance <br />requirements involving churches located in commercial zoning <br />districts. <br />At this time, the Board has a few basic alternatives: <br />1. Direct staff to drop consideration of any regulation change. <br />2. Direct staff to initiate regulation changes to establish a <br />reduced separation distance requirement (such as 5001) for <br />restaurants where beer and..wine are consumed. <br />3. Direct staff to eliminate separation distance requirements <br />involving churches located within commercial zoning districts. <br />RECOMMENDATION: <br />Staff recommends that the Board <br />staff to either initiate specific <br />alcoholic beverage regulations <br />changes to the regulations. <br />of County Commissioners direct <br />changes to the county's existing <br />or to drop consideration of any <br />79 <br />November 5, 1996 eoa 99 PAGE 596 <br />