Smoking patio
May 19th, 2009 by 
Alica
Do you agree with the city council’s decision for 212 restaurant/bar to create a smoking patio on the south side of the building?
The bar’s owners said they want to have the outdoor patio because of the smoking ban that goes into effect July 1. But there have been many media reports that petitions might be filed to bring the matter to a public vote in November, 2010. Are the 212 owners jumping the gun a little?
I’ve said publicly in the past that I personally prefer that people just don’t smoke in the first place, by their own choice. But do I mind a smoking patio next to restaurants? I don’t know.
What do you think?
Posted in Uncategorized, City business | 
May 20th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Not only do we have Federal government controlling what business owners can and cannot do with “THEIR” money,now we have city government telling them what to do. Sounds like the owners of 212 were willing to meet all the criteria the city wanted them to do for noise buffer zones, video surveillance, etc. I don’t believe there has been any noise complaints against the 212, or any police action needed. 212 is a very nice place to go and eat and have a coktail and not have to worry about any loud speakers or jute boxes blarring, so you can’t visit.I am a smoker, but do enjoy their atmospher. A covered patio would be a plus for those that would like to step outside and have a smoke away from the front entrance where everyone walks in. I would classify 212 as a top notch place to go. I would think our city fathers would want to help 212 to succeed. If there would be any complaints to be made,it would be the D&D where they do motorcycle tire burnouts till 9:30-10:00 at night and the sound from that traveling several city blocks from their location right along with the smell of burning rubber for several blocks. I know I really enjoy sitting outside in my backyard trying to enjoy a nice steak off the grill and having to go inside to get away of the smell of burning rubber and noise.. I ask the city council, “WHERE IS THE LINE DRAWN” to be fair for all businesses??
May 20th, 2009 at 10:45 am
What, exactly is Lynn Doppenburg worried about? Not getting enough press??
I agree not having to walk through a pack of smoker’s to get through the door (no pun intended), so the OWNERS need to zone that area as “smoke-free”. However, I have been with smokers on a residential back porch when they throw their finished butts into the yard instead of the furnished trash receptacles, so I can understand some concern over the trash/noise/fire hazard..etc. This is a catch-22: Smokers & non-smokers alike DESERVE a place to enjoy their habits, however, I side with the council on this one: there are some unanswered questions that need to be addressed, however I do believe that the owners are jumping through all the hoops necessary (and unneccessary) to make sure that everyone will be be comfortable at their establishment.
May 20th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
D&D has a patio. what is the difference if 212 has one or not. give me a break the people that live next to the 212 have you had any complaints? if so you have not called them in. this is getting stupid i mean they took the right from the bar owners to decide for themselves if they allow smoking or not now they are telling 212 that they dont want them to put in a patio? Mark runs a great place and always has gone over and above what he has to to keep a good balance with the city and the residents of brandon. give me a break let him do it i do not see a problem. i am not a smoker and i am in favor for them to build a patio for the customers. and this may be off the topic but how is this different than letting a casino go in a area that has houses? those people sure as hell did not want that but the council approved that. wow i think their may be some other people on the council that are part of the good ol boy network.
May 20th, 2009 at 8:51 pm
About a month ago Mostek, Jones and Brooks ( along with the rest of the council )voted to give the Planing and Zoneing the final say on these issues. Now about one month later and just before the new plan goes into place, they vote to overturn the P & Z. So tell me boys do you or don’t you want the planing and Zoneing the final say? How about some consistency.
May 21st, 2009 at 8:06 am
#4 thats the thing their will never be any consistency. they want people to keep their money in brandon but when i comes to a place in brandon wanting to do something for the customers like having a patio the vote it down. the council makes me sick
May 21st, 2009 at 8:58 am
I think the patio is a great idea myself. I do smoke but I still like to go to 212 as a bar/grill of choice for the fact that it IS smokefree inside. Something about the ability to leave without smelling like a bottom of an ash tray is pretty appealing to me…also I dont feel the urge to light up one after another because you dont have people sitting around you doing the same and also I have friends that will not go to bars you can smoke in and it is a great place for EVERYONE to get together whether you smoke or not. I have mentioned to a couple of the bartenders and employee’s of 212 that a patio would be a very nice addition for the ability to actually sit outside and enjoy a drink rather than sitting inside when it is nice out. Look at some of the other places with patios such as Braccos, Granit City, Nutty’s North and Nutty’s South…I think it has not only provided more business but a place to go that there is something for everyone. My vote it “YES”…let them put a patio on. I agree with #1 and #3…they have done an awesome job with 212 and even when I go to SF people talk about it and how everyone says it is such a good place to go. I also agree with the fact of D&D’s…there has been a few times during the past summer that they have their bike burn outs and one time I remember it going until 11pm at night…pretty nice trying to go to sleep to that noise or have a child sleeping and being woke up to it!!! The city council needs to be more uniform and consistant with its decisions…seems like they are in high school trying to win a popularity vote…they will say/do one thing but when they are faced with upset people or confrontaion they turn and alter or change there decision….if your going to say something or make a decision please stand by it and stand up for what you believe not just go with the crowd!!!
May 21st, 2009 at 12:21 pm
would they be able to set up outdoor seating that is not permanent? Like a “sidewalk seating” area? I agree with #6
May 22nd, 2009 at 9:55 am
#6, the problem is they made the compromise in 2007 to not allow a patio. Your comments about D&D seem to make outdoor patios less desirable. Why would anyone in the neighborhood want to allow those issues to come to their part of town?
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:40 am
#8, No different than your neighbor playing their stereo to loud. You ask them politely to refrain from having that problem. If that doesn’t work, then have the police investigate. Same thing as having your neighbors dog crap in you lawn.
May 22nd, 2009 at 10:51 am
#8 first of all two different places. i know that mark will not allow any crap like that to go on. he runs a clean place and their have not been any complants about anything at 212.
May 22nd, 2009 at 1:19 pm
#9 I still have that problem you mentioned with the neighbors dog - haven’t caught anybody in the act. That doesn’t make it less annoying though and makes the rules less than helpful. The D&D comments make me wonder what can be done besides go inside and shut the windows. Isn’t D&D across the street from the police department?
#10 I agree two different places and two different owners.
The problem is owners change as do the crowds that frequent bars.
May 22nd, 2009 at 2:11 pm
#11 i understand but 212 getting a patio is not going to change who goes into it. remember now people can go into the lottery room and have a smoke. so all in all the same people are going to continue to come in. in my opinion all mark is trying to do is two things first he does not want people having to walk by a bunch of people standing in front of the place smoking. second he just wants to give the customers that do smoke a place to go to have one. he is not trying to make problems or piss off the residents in the area. he just wants to keep everyone happy. i dont see the problem. he is just trying to be a good owner.
May 24th, 2009 at 3:24 pm
How fast people forget. And maybe that’s what the business is counting on.
When the variance was initially brought to council it was denied. The owners had to REMOVE the outdoor patio in order to be granted the variance.
Now a year later they want to ADD it back in.
Why even bother with variances and zoning in Brandon? It all gets changed anyway. It’s a waste of time. The business’ get what they want 9 times out of 10 regardless of what impact it has on the lowly home owners. Look at the monstrosity of an apartment building the people got out at Eagle Creek. That initially was NOT zoned for a building of that size. I feel so sorry for them.
Brandon = Business
May 28th, 2009 at 8:07 am
#13 look at the definition patio, open air, open to the blue sky. I believe, from what I’ve heard, there is to be a roof over it, therefore it’s not an OPEN PATIO. The origional ordinance banned open patio.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
I agree with Murph. The council was eager to give all of the power to the planning and zoning yet they just let their morality override their previous decision. By the way, has the mayor appointed new members to P&Z or is he just letting the old ones stay on. If they have the final say in planning and zoning decisions, maybe they need more professional types on board. It was a mistake to make them the board of adjustment, in the first place, but now it is choas as usual.
May 29th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Current members of the Planning & Zoning Commission are listed below. I got the list from the Brandon city Web site, www.brandonsd.com. There is a lot of information there. It’s very educational.
Bob Serk was just appointed to the commission this year. The others, longer.
Bob Serk 582-7110
Paul Bosch 582-6001, 965-3008
Chuck Parsons (Chairman) 582-7405, 582-3224
Todd Stone 582-2132, 310-0318
Tim Jorgenson 582-3448, 582-6464
Linda Weber (unlisted)
Representing the City Council: (non-voting member)
Roger Brooks 582-7170