Now
Fair
75.0°
High
88°
Low
66°
Full Forecast

Coupon

Jobs

Cars

Homes

Rentals

Alerts

Subscribe
Home > News > Local
Bookmark Us   •   Make Us Your Homepage

Council could make it easier for restaurants to serve liquor

Comments 40 comment(s)  
E-mail Story E-mail Story
Print Story Print Story
Share  Share
Text Size: 
Tools Sponsor

BY DEENA WINTER / Lincoln Journal Star

Monday, Jan 07, 2008 - 05:21:19 pm CST

Restaurants in older areas of the city may soon find it easier to get liquor licenses, even if they’re close to residential areas.

Now, restaurants can get permits to serve alcohol as long as they’re at least 100 feet from homes, day cares, churches, parks or state mental health institutions.

The Lincoln City Council is considering reducing the minimum distance between restaurants and homes from 100 feet to 25 feet, as long as the restaurant meets certain criteria.

Story Photo

The change is sought by 9 South Chargrill, which has been unable to get a liquor license since opening at Ninth and South streets because it’s 47 feet from homes. That has hurt business, the owners say, because customers often want a glass of wine with their steak.

Supporters of the change say loosening the law would help develop older areas of Lincoln, where there is less of a buffer between homes and businesses than in the outskirts of the city.

9 South Chargrill co-owner Brett Richardson said economic development is important in older areas of town, and they looked at other locations in the South Street area but ran into the same problem getting a liquor license, due to the proximity of sites to residences.

He got support from Michael Tavlin, chief financial officer of B&J Partnership, which owns the restaurant property. Tavlin said the city often talks about how important it is to invest in the city core, but that can be difficult due to the layout, size and dimensions of lots and their proximity to homes.

The alcohol permits would only be allowed if the restaurant meets certain criteria, such as by serving a complete menu of full-course meals; deriving 60 percent of its gross sales from food; restricting outdoors hours from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m. and not having gaming devices or drive-through windows.

Police Chief Tom Casady said he didn’t have a problem with the zoning change as long as it’s written to prevent situations where a place that serves “a slice of pizza and three pitchers of beer” qualifies as a restaurant.

And while Richardson was credited with running a good business, some council members worried what would happen if ownership of the restaurant changed and, for example, it became a restaurant by day and bar by night.

Councilman Jonathan Cook talked about several possible amendments that will be considered when the ordinance is voted on next week, such as requiring the sale of a meal with a drink and a 10 p.m. closing time.

Councilman Jon Camp said the ultimate goal is to make sure the changes still ensure a “nurturing” environment for neighborhoods.

A similar proposal was rebuffed by the City Council last year, but in that case no special permit would have been required.

Reach Deena Winter at 473-2642 or dwinter@journalstar.com.


$1 Sunday Delivery - Subscribe Today!
Local > Back to Top of Story

Post Your Comment

Standards and Rules
All posts to JournalStar.com are subject to our Terms and Standards.
Your posted comment will appear after it has been approved.
Frequently asked questions about story commenting.
(optional)
   
Hide Comments Hide Comments   Newest First Newest First  
Observer wrote on January 7, 2008 5:53 pm:
" Brett Richardson didn't know about the requirements before he leased the property?????

But, what the heck, a neighborhood can never have too many liquor permits... "
Consistant Logic wrote on January 7, 2008 6:00 pm:
" It appears that the logic used here by many is that these dogs deserved to be shot because they wandered onto property that wasn't their owners . . . maybe the same logic should be applied to the poachers/hunters that trespass onto private property . . . "
Here's an idea... wrote on January 7, 2008 6:16 pm:
" Why don't they take this idea a step further and allow liquor sales on Sunday before noon, too? What am I supposed to do, go to church and sit in a pew because I can't buy beer before noon? This is when I shop for the week, on Sunday mornings, but I have to go out and make a second trip to buy beer, wine or liquor. It makes zero sense, Lincoln. "
Jan wrote on January 7, 2008 6:29 pm:
" Quit trying to overthink this and just loosen the rules. And who cares what Cassidy has to say. Do you want economic development or not? "
reader wrote on January 7, 2008 6:37 pm:
" They should definitly make the change, 9 south is a perfect example of something different other than the typical restaurant chains, that lincoln needs "
JT wrote on January 7, 2008 6:58 pm:
" Man our laws are so arcane. 9th Street Chargrill will not turn into a bar at night. It's a pretty nice restaurant with good food. Let them have the darn license. We'll look back on this dumb 100' law in fifty years and equate it to the equally dumb no taking a beer from one table to another table law we used to have. "
Jester wrote on January 7, 2008 7:36 pm:
" hey, loosen up the requirements for drinking establishments so I can go to a local pub and walk home or keep it the way it is so I have to drive somewhere. Your choice, I will drink either way. Look at Europe, most everyone has a pub within walking distance. Solves more than just one problem. "
john wrote on January 7, 2008 8:42 pm:
" Country Club, Williamsburg. The Ridge, Yankee Hill, Fall Brook, all need a neighborhood bar next door to there homes . Yep, economic development, A bar/ restaurant on every corner. Let's spread the wealth. "
Play nice wrote on January 7, 2008 9:05 pm:
" Remember that you don't HAVE to go anywhere and BUY anything that you don't personally choose to. However, someone else may want to have the choice to enjoy a glass of wine or beer with their steak or burger. Yes, Brett did probably know about the liquor ordinance before leasing the property, and he just is trying to make a change to help economic development in older parts of town. This change, if it passes next week, does not grant 9 South CharGrill a liquor license... just the ability to apply for one. Good luck Brett! "
Anthony wrote on January 7, 2008 10:52 pm:
" "Police Chief Tom Casady said he didn’t have a problem with the zoning change as long as it’s written to prevent situations where a place that serves “a slice of pizza and three pitchers of beer” qualifies as a restaurant." Exactly what is wrong with a neighborhood pizza place that serves beer or, for that matter, what is wrong with a neighborhood bar? What is the Liquor Commission there for anyways? Our government should give freedoms first, then be forced to provide rationale for curbing them second. In Cassidy's world, we would have to ask permission to smoke OUTSIDE of a restaurant. "
John wrote on January 7, 2008 11:48 pm:
" Everyone on the city council will have their own requirements to get something such as this passed. There will undoubtedly be so many requirements that most restaurants will just say the efforts necessary are not worth the reward gained. True 100 % politics.
"
sad wrote on January 7, 2008 11:50 pm:
" so now Lincoln's "economic growth" hangs on walmarts and bars what a joke do not grant the change thats the problem everyone is going to the council for a pass on everything on the book and it has gotten us to the point of greed black mail and bribery i guess everyones attempts to turn Lincoln into Omaha is working "
Mrs. Johnson wrote on January 8, 2008 6:11 am:
" We knew this was coming! The right wingers use the religious right to get elected but always end up giving business what they want. You'd think the church people would learn. It's Pandoras box and our city council will open it. Mr Spatz election to council has changed things for the worse. "
Meh wrote on January 8, 2008 6:17 am:
" I'd like to point out that not every place that wants to serve alcohol necessarily wants to specialize in booze. I know a coffee house that would like permission to add a simple splash of Cointreau or Kirschwasser to specialty drinks. It'd be nice to be able to sit down to a genuine "Irish Coffee" (with a dash of whiskey). The amount of alcohol in these are so small I hardly think there'd be a rush of derelicts lined up to chug the 3 or 4 gallons it'd take to get a genuine alcohol buzz. It's silly that they cannot offer this type of drink. It's typical Midwest puritanism. "
Michael wrote on January 8, 2008 7:01 am:
" Restaurants should be able to compete, and making it difficult by restricting alcohol sales is stupid. If it is a restaurant, I would bet that more like 80% of it's sales is food over liquor...I would say get rid of the distance restriction totally and put a higher percentage of food over alcohol restriction on them, that way we make sure that they are a restaurant and not a bar. "
Old Law wrote on January 8, 2008 7:33 am:
" Sorry to burst your bubble "Here's an idea", the no alcohol sales is a state law and not a city ordinance.

I agree with Casady. What we don't need is McDonalds selling beer with the Big Mac. Places that serve minimum amount of food just to get a liquor license are more likely to sell to minors and people too intoxicated just to make a buck.

Do you folks who want to liberalize the alcohol laws realize that alcohol kills more people and more people commit crimes because of alcohol? "
Sylvia wrote on January 8, 2008 7:51 am:
" Before the city council changes this stipulation, they should legalize Sunday morning alcohol purchases. Sunday isn't a holy day for Muslims, Jews, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, athiests, or Seventh-Day Adventists, and it isn't really a holy day for Catholics who go to church on Saturday or christians who don't really go to church. Why should the rest of us have to pay for christian blue laws? "
Cal Naughton Jr. wrote on January 8, 2008 8:40 am:
" He didn't HAVE to put his restaurant there, when renovating that old building did he not notice all the houses across the street? It's not as if this was an established restaurant with houses built around it after the fact. I don't think they should allow it. "
get it right wrote on January 8, 2008 9:28 am:
" sorry to bust your bubble old law, the no alchol sales before noon on sundays is a city ordinance. i work nights and when i get off sunday morning, i drive to bennett to get beer. its good to see some people on here know what they are trying to argue about!!!! "
Loosen it wrote on January 8, 2008 9:29 am:
" This law seems way outdated anyway. What does it matter? This probably affects 2 business's total. What would it truly affect anyhow? Kinda of a silly law in the first place, the people in the houses can drink why not the people in the restaurant? "
robert e adams wrote on January 8, 2008 9:35 am:
" its nice to see small business owners be given an opportunity to make a positive name for themselfs. I know Brett personally and he takes great pride in his restaurant. good luck Brett.

Im glad you got the approval from cassidy....he's key player in your goals....


"
This is what is wrong with the US wrote on January 8, 2008 9:35 am:
" You go to Europe and there is a pub within walking distance of housing. But here in the states you have to drive to get to one. Lets see let people have a few beers and walk home or have a few beers and drive. Hmmm I wonder why there are so many DUI's, seems like an easy choice to me Casidy!! "
JPF wrote on January 8, 2008 9:39 am:
" If we outlawed everything that people die while doing there'd be a law against sex, Old Law. McDonalds isn't going to start selling beer (in American stores, anyways), its got too much at stake as a family resteraunt. Really, you folks who want to legislate every nook and cranny in life aren't creating a free democracy, you're re-creating High School. There's going to be a backlash someday and its not going to be a good thing. Moderation is the key. "
Cassidy wont be happy wrote on January 8, 2008 9:51 am:
" Until we all stay indoors and never leave the house and, more importantly, until all booze is banned once again. "
roer wrote on January 8, 2008 10:04 am:
" Our current city council has their blinders on. No one on the council can see passed the nearest exit. "
Dano wrote on January 8, 2008 10:26 am:
" Sylvia has a great point. Who does preventing the selling of alcohol from midnight on Saturday to noon on Sunday serve or benefit? All the old/tight/crotchety people who passed this are gone or need to lighten up some. For those who believe God is offened should probably know was offened long before that. You don;t have to purchase it, you can police yourselves. I am fairly sure that 12 hour period doesn't make one bit of difference. What is Sunday, really isn't Sunday, and actually Tuesday is? Make life a lot easier for those of us who are or aren't of the faith that got those laws passed. Revoke those while you are at making progressive chagnes. I am sure the grocery stores of the city wouldn't mind not having to put up blockades and program their cash registers for that 12 hout period. Grant a restuarant its right to pursue/do business the best it legally sees fit. Let the commission decide if a license or not should be granted. that is what they are paid for. Shoot, more applications, means more fees and renewals if granted, income for the city. "
Jenn wrote on January 8, 2008 1:11 pm:
" A few things.. The resturant is GREAT. Those of you who have not been there, I recommend this place for the GREAT food, try their Texas Baked Potatoes.
Now that I'm hungry...
Also what is the big deal about not selling liquor on Sunday mornings?! Get a life people, go ton Sat and get your booze if you must! "
Shopper wrote on January 8, 2008 1:17 pm:
" I agree. We live out of town and last Sunday we came to Lincoln to do some grocery shopping. We had to wait around until noon just so we could get beer for the advertised price. "
Scott wrote on January 8, 2008 2:05 pm:
" The South Street area could be a really neat mixed-use area with good restaurants and neighborhood pubs if city ordinance would allow it. I support this change because it will add new,viable businesses to the area, expand the hours pedestrians are around, and breathe new life into the vicinity. Classic infill development and reuse. Good luck! "
Old Guy wrote on January 8, 2008 2:44 pm:
" I don't think Casady wants you to be able to walk to a bar. He would loose his claim to fame, DUI's. They are the major driving force to this police department. It is the only traffic enforcement they care about. I have heard many lame excuses the police use to pull someone over, just after bar closing time. No, I have never had a DUI, in fact I average less than 1 beer a month. I think neighborhood bars are a great idea. "
Oh come on... wrote on January 8, 2008 3:15 pm:
" This is a great restaurant run by responsible people. Give them the license. Seems a bit hypocritical to deny a license to 9 South for fear of liquor being sold too close to housing, when there's a liquor store right across the street. I could get drunker, faster, for less money, on a six pack from the store than I could on a beer with dinner. "
What about wrote on January 8, 2008 7:38 pm:
" Brewsky's on 16th & South. What do they think is directly behind there? It's a neighborhood not a cornfield. I also agree that neighborhood bars would cut down on driving drunk for sure. I hang out with my friends that live in walking distance more for that very reason. Unless the city wants to start running the buses at 1am on weekends, we should be able to have a smattering of neighborhood bars. Check out how busy the Grapevine on 26th & Stockwell is on the weekends. People want the option to stay in their own hood so they don't have to drink and drive. Period. "
Doug wrote on January 8, 2008 11:09 pm:
" I would love to have a "near bar" or restaurant that served alcohol within walking distance of my house. Anyhow, how much difference does 100 feet really make anyways? "
hapkidoman wrote on January 9, 2008 9:27 am:
" "So they don't have to drink and drive." ARE YOU KIDDING ME.No one has to drink and drive, people just aren't responsible enough to drink responsibly.Don't blame anybody else for th DUI "problem"but the people drinking and driving.No one said selling bear at a pizza place was bad. What was said is they didnt want them selling THREE PITCHERS OF BEER WITH ONE SLICE OF PIZZA.People who want to get drunk are just mad that they are expected to be responsible,it makes people that just want to have a beer with their meal sound stupid.I don't care what they do with the rule,I am just tired of the crying. "
dave wrote on January 9, 2008 9:30 am:
" some of you who are making comments asking about other bars being close to houses don't know your distances very well. 100ft is not very far. I bet for most of you the distance between your front door to the front door of the neighbor accross the st is far more than 100 ft. "
Booze Creeping wrote on January 9, 2008 11:21 am:
" Alcohol sales is not economic development. It is connected and related to more crime. This is a bad idea.
"
Bad Idea wrote on January 9, 2008 1:00 pm:
" I think that alcohol sales should be restricted even more. There is no need for sales of alcohol after 7 p.m. and as a matter of fact before 8 in the morning.

If there were a restriction on the number of bars and a cutoff time of 11 p.m. you would find a more refined city with less incidents involving alcohol. The ban on smoking has done wonders for Lincoln and should serve as a model for more consideration to our existing laws.

There is no need for these establishments being in the neighborhoods. "
Scott wrote on January 9, 2008 5:30 pm:
" Alcohol sales do not, in itself, equal economic development. It is, however, a tool that can be used to help revitalize the area. It provides for later hours of operation that add vitality to pedestrian-oriented shopping districts like South Street. Almost all successful mixed-use districts have some sort of local drinking and eating establishments. These don't have to be all-out bars, but restaurants that serve booze. Having people around later into the evening provides eyes on the street, makes for a safer, more inviting environment, and serves as a spring-board for other small businesses like specialty shops to thrive. "
crazy wrote on January 9, 2008 8:42 pm:
" wow its crazy how many people are craving alcohol sales withing 100 feet or less of their homes if the city changes this law im building a apartment building with a bar in the basement "
Civis wrote on January 9, 2008 10:03 pm:
" Does the local government really enforce this 100 feet rule?
Is it horizonal or vertical? One might imagine the Rococco Theatre has a license AND 10+ stories of residential units just above it, The old State Theatre is less than 100 feet from the apartments located on the SW corner or 15th between O and the O to N alley and there are occupied units above a number of downtown bars.

Until this came up, did the city ever really walk the walk with a tapemeasure and look for violations?
Are the bars/resturants in the HayMarket more than 100 feet from residences?
This is like the multiple occupant rental units. Its only
discussed or enforced when it benefits someone or Cassiday can beat on his drum.

"

Ads by Yahoo!