I think I got the basic analysis of the outdoor music venue ordinance right. But a couple of issues deserve more discussion.
First, I pointed out that unless a property is zoned for cocktail lounge, a restaurant will have to apply to rezone the property to switch its classification to a cocktail lounge. Cocktail lounges are allowed (conditionally) in CS-1 districts, which are rare, but they are also allowed in the CBD and DMU districts. These include both downtown and most of Barton Springs (including Shady Grove). I didn't mention the CBD or DMU districts before. Shady Grove will not have to seek a rezoning because it is zoned DMU. Restaurants along South Lamar, South Congress and other streets not within these three districts will need to seek rezonings.
But, second, the cocktail lounge reclassification will itself be more onerous than I indicated. The Chronicle (h/t M1EK), on April 24 and again today, points out the cocktail lounges are conditional uses in CS-1, DMU and CBD districts. This is a big deal, since restaurants will now have to go through the conditional-use permitting process, including a trip to the Planning Commission. Furthermore, I believe they will have to submit site plans and comply with all code requirements enacted since they obtained their initial use permits, including parking, compatibility, setbacks, etc. This may be an insurmountable hurdle for venues that have been around for 20 or 30 years. Rather than being a minor, administrative matter, a reclassification will be time-consuming, expensive and fraught with uncertainty.
Finally, as I pointed out, it is not at all clear that these restaurants even meet the definition of a cocktail lounge. The sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption is an accessory use for a restaurant. It is a principal use for cocktail lounges. Can city staff reclassify alcohol sales from accessory to principal use without any change in the mix of food and alcohol sales?
When I posed this question to Jeff Jack on the ANC listserve, he replied, "I suspect that what we will see is, at least in this case, is the interpretation by staff allowing food sales, no matter how much of a percentage of the total sales, to be an accessory use to a cocktail lounge. this only makes since selling more food at a bar is a good thing from the perspective of limiting alcohol abuse and it's related problems for which the code distinction was created."
City staff may be pressured to adopt this interpretation. If it does not, then restaurants will have an incentive to push alcohol sales and curb food sales -- which would certainly be an unintended and harmful consequence of the new ordinances. I don't know have far staff can go with this, since it has to worry about the consistency of its treatment of "accessory use" with other uses. In other words, if it treats food sales as an accessory use even though they comprise 80% of gross revenue, it might have to liberalize its definition of accessory use for other, unrelated uses.
As I said before, this last issue is a murky one. We won't really know the answer until staff tells us.
