It may be 70 in December, but restaurants in Maplewood with outdoor dining on sidewalks have removed the chairs and tables or will receive a notice they’re breaking a Maplewood ordinance. They have to be put away from November 30 to March 1.
Maplewood building inspector, Brian Herr, said it’s easier to remove snow and ice from sidewalks without the furniture there. He said it’s more relevant for places like La Cosecha Coffee or Maya Cafe that have seating right on the sidewalk, but the rule needs to apply equally. He said Acero and Water Street were the first to have outdoor seating in Maplewood.
Outdoor seating on private property, like the patio behind Maya Cafe, or The Crow’s Nest, can stay.
The ordinance reads:
The outdoor dining season is from March 1 to November 30. All outdoor dining establishments must cease operation annually on November 30 and remove and store all pedestrian barriers, furniture and other related outside items (until at least March 1 of the following year). Barriers and other outdoor related dining furniture may not be stored on the exterior of the building.
Robata, which opened in September in Maplewood, has heavy picnic tables for outdoor dining — too heavy to be easily moved — which means Robata will be in violation until they’re moved out of the area. Owner, Thom Chantharasy, said Tuesday if that’s the case he’ll have to unbolt the tables piece by piece to remove them.
Yet another outdated regulation on small businesses. Why the city can’t clean up the side walk, and leave the roped off areas up to businesses to take care of, is not clear. I for one would love to have a beer, under a heater, out among the snow. And the fact this ordinance is being applied in 70 degree weather, seems beyond what the spirit of the rule is.
Mary, Could you please list the other outdated regulations you refer to? It is disingenuous to lump this ordinance with other concerns you have without stating what those concerns are. With regard to outside dining, it is impractical for a business to pull out the outdoor furniture on a daily or hourly basis based on temperature, rain or other weather criteria. If global warming continues, we can leave the furniture out all year but that will be the least of our concerns.
I’m wondering why the impractically of pulling outdoor furniture in or out is something that needs to be controlled by a city ordinance. Is that not something that businesses can determine on their own?
Over the past 30 years St Louis has experienced an average snow fall of 17 inches per year, spread over 14 days per year. The heaviest months (Dec, Jan, Feb) have experienced between 3-4 days of snow/month. Given the wide swings in weather in our region, I agree it is impractical for businesses to pull outdoor furniture on a daily/hourly basis. But given the low amount of snowfall our region experiences, I believe this law is heavy handed in banning outdoor furniture for 3 months, for the small inconvenience it causes the city for 3-4 days/mo, especially in current conditions, where we have yet to see any snow. The city erred on the side of being more restrictive, simply for its convenience in case of having to shovel snow, at the expense of potential revenue that could be generate during those 3 months by businesses.
As for other regulations that are outdated:
– our ordinances make no mention of sexual orientation as a protected class, leaving it open to lessors to discriminate in renting properties.
– our conditional use process mandates $330 public notice fee to cover the expenses of the required notice in a locally published newspaper…this at a time when fewer than 1 in 4 people read a newspaper, and over 75% of people have home internet service. Why doesn’t the city use its website (the way the majority of people can access information and a much more cost effective option) to put out such notices, it might actually reach more people.
Thank you Kevin for researching the City Code of Ordinances. I couldn’t get your link to work on my iPad, but the municipal code is fairly easy to access online at http://www.cityofmaplewood.com. It would have been helpful if code research was included in the original article and it might have eliminated some unnecessary misconceptions. The ordinance clearly states:
Sec. 42-98. – Outdoor dining.
The following standards address general provisions governing the placement of outdoor dining establishments associated with restaurants in which the restaurant is using public right-of-way or located on the sidewalk fronting the establishment:
In my opinion the ordinance (that I voted for) was well written and addresses both public safety and the restaurant owners rights and responsibilities. Keep in mind that the City is allowing private restaurants to utilize public property for additional seating, requiring regulation. Outdoor dining makes Maplewood a more vibrant and interactive community and any discussion of outdated or poorly written legislation should include a brief visit to the website to address the actual language of the ordinance.
Did he say “more relevant” or “only relevant”? Take a look at Section 42-98 of the City Code. The ordinance in question only applies to restaurants with outdoor dining “using public right-of-way or located on the sidewalk fronting the establishment.”
https://www.municode.com/library/mo/maplewood/codes/code_of_ordinances?nodeId=PTIICOOR_CH42STSIOTPUPL_ARTIVOB_S42-98OUDI
The ordinance was adopted in 2004 when the concept of outdoor dining was new to the city and rules needed to be in place to ensure that accessible paths were available for sidewalk users and seasonal maintenance could be performed in the event of typical seasonal weather. I don’t have any problems with the ordinance itself, which appears to be clear and well written. However, I do have a problem with the city’s erroneous interpretation if they are in fact attempting enforce the ordinance upon businesses for which the law was not written and does not apply.
The first time I read this I saw the glowing error and now I am surprised nobody has acknowledged it yet; especially the writer(s). The last sentence in paragraph one says they have tI be put away from March 1 to November 30. I believe you mean they must be put away from November 30 until March 1. Very shoddy editing.
Oh, and is Robatas outside dining not on their own private property? If not, are they paying to rent the space and to who are they renting it from?
John – You are correct about the date, of course. It’s been corrected. About Robata, I was going on what the Maplewood inspector told me.
It seems this is an ordinance that may have made sense at some point in the past but is certainly obsolete in today’s Maplewood. The city is certainly not out to make a profit on dinging restaurants that leave patio furniture out. I say send a polite email to your councilperson and let them know there is interest in eliminating this ordinance.
This is a ridiculous and outdated ordinance. Climate change means seasonal changes. As you said, it is 70 degrees out, and it is supposed to be a very mild winter. We should be able to eat outside if the weather is nice and restaurants should be able to reap the benefits. This is a silly ordinance and it should be changed. Why would a city want to limit tax revenue for no good reason?
Someone actually gets paid for this? Like, this is really part of someones job to write ordinances such as this GEM and/or enforce this????!! Where can I apply!? I want to come up with ridiculous rules for money, or the feeling of a teeny bit more power. Because there’s no frikin way this rule makes sense for local businesses just trying to succeed in their little community. Thank goodness this ordinance was written..we’re ALL SO MUCH SAFER FOR IT. (facepalm)
Is Maplewood low on cash?
That’s old school, backwards policy right there. Not something I thought Maplewood would be party to. Tables on actual sidewalks? Sure, move’m. Gated (and bolted-down) benches off the beaten path? Who cares?
I understand Maya and Water street, because they are in a sidewalk, but the living room and Robata are not sidewalks, and out of the way.
It’s a shame they can’t make an exception for Robata. What a pain…
Comments are closed.