Good afternoon:I am linking the Scene Magazine story from today 10/05. I have received a few emails or calls about the context of the story regarding using the term "neighborhood shopping strip". Everyone that has worked on this or reviewed the proposed legislation knows in reality the terms of local retail and general retail districts are legislative factors in the current law and proposed changes.

Under a section of the current summary titled "New Zoning Ordinance Definitions" it defines a "Nightclub" thus-

""Nightclub" means a restaurant, bar or tavern, as defined in this code, where one or more forms of entertainment are provided and which devote areas to live entertainment or dancing constituting more than four hundred (400) squar...e feet of floor area or more than twenty five percent (25%) of the establishment's total floor area, whichever amount is less."

Some have asserted over and over that this ordinance will not affect some of the more major music clubs, because they are by this definition "Nightclubs" and allowed to have loud live music. Well, let's take a look, because a section of this summary titled "Zoning Ordinance Regulations", (once again, I will use all caps to show recent proposed changes by the city planning commission) it says this-

"No nightclub shall be within 500 feet of a residential district OR DWELLING UNIT. Outdoor dining patios within 200 feet of a residential district or dwelling unit, AND OUTDOOR DINING PATIOS WITH MUSIC PERFORMANCES OR SOUND AMPLIFYING DEVICES WITHIN 1,000 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR DWELLING UNIT, shall require a conditional use permit, and no music or sound shall be heard from 11:00PM AND 8:00AM, EXCEPT THAT THE BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS MAY GRANT A VARIANCE TO EXTEND SUCH HOURS TO AS LATE AS 1:00AM IN A PARTICULAR LOCATION IF THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT THERE WILL BE NO DISTURBANCE TO OCCUPANTS OF NEARBY RESIDENCES OR LIKELY FUTURE RESIDENCES.

Ok, so we all know some music venues big enough to be considered Nightclubs by the city's definition. I can think of at least two major music venues right off the top of my head (The Beachland Ballroom, and Brother's Lounge) that would be defined as Nightclubs, and would fall within 500 feet of a "residential district or dwelling", WAY within 500 feet.

Brother's also has an amazing patio, that definitely falls within 1,000 feet of residential and dwellings, and has speakers on it for sattelite radio. That constitutes sound amplification, so they will already require a conditional use.

Next, this section states that "...no music or sound shall be heard..." that means no sound at all, no matter what it's source, can leave that patio after 11:00PM, or they would be breaking the law.

Now, they can apply for a variance to go as late as 1AM, as long as it is deemed by the board that there will be "no disturbance to occupants of nearby residences" or "likely future residences". Wait, back up... That doesn't say "likely future residents", it says "Likely future residences". What????? This says that a venue can be denied a variance, based on the idea that noise from the venue might someday disturb somebody who might possibly someday want to live in a dwelling that might possibly someday be built near it. Someday. Maybe. I can't wait to call all of the places I might someday want to possibly live, maybe, and get them to pass ordinances that say no noise can happen there on the premise I might possibly someday want to put my dwelling near that location. Think they'll laugh at me? I have tried to be calm and collected about my whole approach to this, but now I HAVE to ask- Who the hell came up with that?

Also worthy of mentioning- Under a section of this summary titled "Local Retail and General Retail Districts", it states very clearly that "Nightclubs are permitted in General Retail but not permitted in Local Retail".

We have established that under the definitions in the proposed ordinance, both The Beachland and Brother's, two major Cleveland music venues, would be considered "Nightclubs". We have also determined that they are both zoned as "Local Retail". Just sayin'.

More soon.See More

· · Share · 7 hours ago

•  
• 9 people like this.
• View 1 share
• • 

"IN GENERAL RETAIL DISTRICTS AND IN ALL LESS RESTRICTED ZONING DISTRICTS, AMPLIFIED... ENTERTAINMENT THAT PRODUCES NOISE LEVELS GREATER THAN THAT PRODUCED BY UNAMPLIFIED ACOUSTIC MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS SHALL BE PERMITTED ONLY AS A CONDITIONAL USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 329.041 FOR ANY USE LOCATED WITHIN TWO HUNDRED (200) FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR DWELLING UNIT EXISTING AT THE TIME OF THE ESTABLISHMENT OF USE, OTHER THAN A DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN THE SAME BUILDING AS THE ENTERTAINMENT ACTIVITY".

Now, what the general gist of that is, is that if you are zoned "General Retail", or have other less restrictive zoning, you CAN in fact have entertainment louder than the totally unplugged variety, provided that if you are within 200 feet of any residential district or dwelling not on your premises, you procure a "Conditional Use" permit. A conditional use is exactly what it sounds like. It's permission granted to undertake certain activities, provided certain conditions are met. Not all in all a terrible thing. BUT, could result in some venues with "General Retail" zoning ceasing to have "entertainment", should the conditions prove too costly or inconvenient. The owners or operators of venues affected by this could simply decide it's too much trouble or money to meet conditions set forth to gain a permit, and decide it's easier just to not have bands.

A short listing of venues that provide entertainment zoned "General Retail" within the city's borders, again just from last week's Friday magazine, there are more... -

Danny Boy's Tavern
Flying Monkey
Third Place
Treehouse
Club XO
Spitfire
The Normandy
Becky's
Corner Alley
Peabody's
Wilbert's

Now, granted, not all of those are within 200 feet of a residential district or existing dwelling. If they aren't, they would not have to gain a Conditional Use. But a lot more of them ARE within 200 feet, than aren't, that's for sure.See More

· · Share · 12 hours ago

•  
• 3 people like this.
• • 

I call BS on that idea. Any club, bar, tavern, or restaurant that employs people, provides entertainment, and is located in Local Retail or Residential areas will be affected. Yes, it's worthy to note that some of the ...more major music clubs are not in zoning that will be affected, but a couple of them will be, and lots of little places certainly will be.

That may not be seen as important by some folks, but it is to me, and I'll bet my M&M's that it's VERY important to a the huge majority of working players in this town, who derive their only income from being bar musicians.

I love the big music clubs, and I work with some of them regularly. I would not like to see any ill befall any of them. BUT, for a lot of players, the smaller bars and taverns are life's bread and butter. Sure, we work in the suburbs too. But there are a LOT of places within Cleveland borders that provide live entertainment, and will be affected. If you are wondering which ones, here is a short list.

These are just the bars and clubs that have entertainment, and are zoned "Local Retail" or residential that were listed in last week's Friday magazine. Just a small sampling. There are more besides, many more.

Prosperity Social Club
Beachland Ballroom
Happy Dog
Johnny Malloy's
Now That's Class
PJ McIntyre's
Public House
Smedley's
The Hawk
Twist
Brother's Lounge
Cavanna
Touch Supper Club
Garage
Bop Stop
The Harp
Anatomy
Barr Fly

Keep in mind, these are only the ones that listed in last week's Friday Magazine. We could all name a dozen more at least.

Next entry in a few minutes, prepare to get fumin'...See More

· · Share · 13 hours ago

•  
• 6 people like this.
• • 

I have on my desk this morning, a current summary of proposed ordinance 347-11. This contains the basic gist of the thing, and several proposed changes being suggested by the city planning commission. As I've stated previously, the section... on volume levels not exceeding that of "unamplified acoustical musical instruments" is supposedly going to be modified or removed, but for right now, it is still intact, and that's a problem. There has also been a slight change. Where changes are being suggested to any part of the ordinance, I will use all caps to illustrate which language is new. The summary currently reads:

"In local retail districts, entertainment in restaurants, taverns and bars (and accessory entertainment uses) shall be no louder than noise produced by unamplified acoustical musical instruments, and the noise shall not be perceptible in a residential district or a dwelling unit (unless the dwelling unit is in the same building as the entertainment activity) AND SHALL NOT INCLUDE RECORDED MUSIC PLAYED BY A "DISC JOCKEY"."

I will admit, I'm not entirely sure what they are meaning here. It's written in a way that makes it read really strangely. Being that "entertainment" is the noun being described by the rest of the language, it could mean that either Dj's aren't considered "entertainment", and therefore not subject to these rules. OR, it could mean that no entertainment used in local retail districts shall include Dj's. It's kind of hazy, which is the problem with a great deal of this thing, very little transparency.

If it IS giving a free pass to Dj's, it makes no sense. My personal issues with clubs hiring Dj's instead of live bands aside, I have to look at this logically, and employ common sense. In doing that, I have to consider that most bar and club Dj's are as louder, or louder than most live bands, and carry a much heavier low end frequency response in most cases. If it IS in fact giving a pass to Dj's, then it does nothing to solve noise problems for residents, and only serves to put musicians out of work.

If it is saying that no Dj's can do their thing in bars and clubs zoned local retail, then that's not fair either. Not sure why Dj's are suddenly being singled out in either case. It's just weird.

Keep in mind, this is not a solid change to the legislation, only a change being suggested by the city planning commission. But, being suggested, could easily be adopted into the legislation.See More

· · Share · 13 hours ago

•  
• 3 people like this.
• •