Planning Commission shoots down request for outdoor rooftop dining at Kenilworth Tavern
A small group of fed-up residents applauded last night after the Lakewood Planning Commission rejected a plan to construct an outdoor dining patio on the roof of the Kenilworth Tavern.
With one member absent and another abstaining, the commission voted unanimously to deny the request because the city’s zoning code limits outdoor dining to the ground floor level only.
The ruling satisfied several people who live or own property near the bar and feared the addition would exacerbate on-going bar-related problems.
Kenilworth Ave. resident Dan Bryan, who lives a few houses away from the bar’s rear parking lot, said it was good to see a small business expanding, but wondered if rooftop dining would contribute to more neighborhood parking, noise, and safety problems. “The noise is a major, major concern because we can hear everything,” he said. He also shared a story about finding a stolen car parked in his backyard that was put there by a bar patron.
Bryan’s next-door neighbor, Susan Petsche, said she has to get up early for work and finds late night disturbances unhelpful. “There are nights on the weekend that are absolutely awful,” she said. “You get tired of calling the police. I’ve just about given up.”
Another Kenilworth resident who could not attend the meeting submitted a letter that acknowledged the inevitable challenges associated with living in close proximity to a bar, but expressed “huge concerns” about the prospect of having to endure additional noise disturbances.
One citizen who has lived on Owego Ave. for ten years said the noise problems got worse after the state instituted an indoor smoking ban that forced the bar crowd outside onto the sidewalk to get their nicotine fix. “We are considering moving out of Lakewood because of the bar,” he said. “We are like a nuisance to the police because we call so much [about the noise].”
Owego apartment building owner Milt Yee liked the rooftop dining concept, but felt it was “not in a good location.” He has heard complaints from his tenants about the noise, especially during football season. “It gets mighty loud,” he said.
Ward 1 Councilperson Kevin Butler weighed in on the issue, and said he understood the tavern was trying to be creative and remain competitive in a tough business environment. However, he said, the city council authorized outdoor dining with “food establishments” in mind – not bars – because they “didn’t want outdoor dining to become a haven for drinkers.”
More significantly, Butler opposed the rooftop dining proposal because the issues citizens complained haven’t been corrected. It “would not be wise to add to a problem that has not been abated,” he said.
Before the commission voted, Kenilworth Tavern owner Paul Kriaris responded to everyone’s comments. “I do agree with some of them,” he said. “I’m with the people. I understand their concerns.” He said the bar has been there for 30 years, and he owns rental properties in the city.
The design
The outdoor rooftop dining floor plan. The front of the building is to the left.
Although Kriaris can’t use the rooftop as a dining facility, the plan he submitted deserves a glance. (See full document – .PDF) One commission member said he admired its “creativity,” but found it “fraught with many challenges.”
One glaring overestimation was the number of seats allowed with outdoor dining. The diagram shows 13 tables and 52 seats. Kriaris said at the meeting he’d only have space for 12 tables and 48 seats. The board explained regulations require the number not to exceed 25% of the total number of seats inside. The Kenilworth Tavern seats 99 inside, so they’d only be able to put a maximum of 24 outside. If Kriaris knew the actual number to begin with, one wonders if he would have pursued the project considering its expense.
The construction of the dining deck wouldn’t have involved any reinforcements or structural alterations to the roof. The second floor of residential apartments is vacant and would have been modified for the creation of a public restroom and stairs to the roof.
Lakewood-based architect Tom Waddell told the commission his research showed that the building did not need an elevator to be ADA compliant because it is a private facility with less than 3,000 square feet per floor.
Responding to the concern that projectiles could be launched from the roof to the street, Kriaris explained that he would have a double-fence system at whatever height the city wanted.
Final observation – Déjà vu?
Whatever side of the fence you’re on – either pro-business or pro-citizen – it seems like this project could have been a boon for business at Kenilworth Tavern. The city can always tweak the rules to make outdoor rooftop dining possible. A real concern is the continuing unwanted behavior occurring in the vicinity of certain Lakewood bars. There are laws in place to protect our neighborhoods from this kind negative quality of life issue. But is everyone doing their job properly? Is this going to continue indefinitely? Butler was caught up in this sort of thing last summer, too. Will he be back for another performance next year?
Tags: