[11.A) A Resolution Determining Petition 25-V6, Relating to a Variance Pursuant to Section 56-41 of the Code Of Ordinances, City Of Naples, to Allow a Home Generator to Encroach Approximately Three and a Half Feet into the Required Minimum Rear Yard Pursuant to Section 58-176 of the Code of Ordinances, City Of Naples, for the Property Owned by Stacy B. Vermylen Declaration of Trust, and Located at 255 1st Avenue North, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing an Effective Date.]

MR. MCCONNELL, 11 A YES. THANK YOU. MAYOR. A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 20 5V6 RELATING TO A VARIANCE PURSUANT TO SECTION 5641 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES TO ALLOW A HOME GENERATOR TO ENCROACH.

APPROXIMATELY 3.5FT INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM REAR YARDS PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 8-1 76 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROPERTY OWNED BY STACY B VERMEULEN.

DECLARATION OF TRUST AND LOCATED AT 255 FIRST AVENUE NORTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING, MISS MARTIN. I GUESS FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY, PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND.

I'M SORRY. NO. YOU'RE FINE. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? YES. THANK YOU. I THANK YOU FOR SWEARING IN. COUNCIL MEMBER DISCLOSURE COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I'VE HAD NO CONTACT. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF. KRISTEN. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE? NO CONTACT WITH THE PETITIONER. COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF.

COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. I TALKED WITH STAFF. HI, DAVID.

I TALKED WITH STAFF ABOUT THIS. COUNCIL MEMBER FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH THE PETITIONER AND WITH STAFF VICE MAYOR.

YEAH, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. DRIVEN BY THE SITE. NO CONTACT.

DROVE BY THE SITE. I MET WITH STAFF AND NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MISS MARTIN. PETITIONER'S AGENT, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR PRESENTATION.

GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR THE TIME.

AND I HOPE THIS WILL BE NOT AT ALL CONTROVERSIAL, BUT THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.

SO OUR HOME IS LOCATED AT 255 FIRST AVENUE NORTH IN THE.

I'M SORRY. IT'S JUST GET YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? SURE. STACY VERMEULEN. 34102. SO WE'RE LOCATED ON FIRST AVENUE NORTH, WHICH YOU MAY KNOW IS A LOVELY STREET WITH MAHOGANY LINED TREES.

IT'S A BEAUTIFUL STREET. OUR HOME WAS BUILT IN 2008 AND 2009, SOMEWHAT BEFORE WE HAD SIGNIFICANT HURRICANE ACTIVITY IN THE COMMUNITY. AND IT WAS DESIGNED BY ARCHITECT ANDREA CLARK BROWN.

SHE DESIGNED THE HOUSE WITH A VERY SPECIFIC CONCEPT OF BOTH.

THE HOUSE RELATES TO THE OUTDOORS, SO EACH OUTDOOR LOCATION IS VERY MUCH CONNECTED TO THE INDOORS.

THE TO IN. IN ADDITION, SHE WAS VERY AWARE OF WATER RUNOFF AND ECOLOGICAL ISSUES RELATED TO IT.

[01:20:05]

WE OUR HOME WAS SELECTED BY THE GARDEN CLUB FOR A SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTE, THE REAR GARDEN, WHICH IS WHAT IS KNOWN AS AN LA.

IT'S A SERIES OF PARALLEL TREES THAT CREATE A BEAUTIFUL LOOK AND A PATH.

THEY'RE 20FT TALL AT THIS POINT, SO THEY'RE TALLER THAN THEY WERE WAY BACK WHEN.

BUT THE STONES OF THE PATH BETWEEN THEM ALLOW WATER TO PENETRATE AND ALLOW FOR PROPER WATER RUNOFF.

AND WE HAVE POWER CHALLENGES IN THE AREA. AS YOU KNOW, THIS AREA IS STILL ABOVE GROUND POWER.

THERE'S A TRANSFORMER RIGHT BEHIND OUR HOME, AND YOU CAN SEE THE VEGETATION OUR NEIGHBOR HAS IS OFTEN CRAWLING THROUGH THE TRANSFORMER.

SO THERE ARE OCCASIONS WHERE WE HAVE AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN WITHOUT POWER.

AND THEN OF COURSE DURING HURRICANES WE HAVE IT.

SO A GENERATOR WHICH ALL MY NEIGHBORS HAVE, WOULD BE AN IMPORTANT SAFETY FEATURE FOR US TO PROTECT OUR HOME.

AT THE ZOOM PRE-QUALIFICATION MEETING, THEY DISCUSSED MANY OPTIONS INCLUDING PUTTING IT IN THE FRONT YARD, BUILDING A 12 FOOT SECOND STORY TO OUR AIR CONDITIONING PLATFORM OR LOOKING AT OTHER PARTS OF THE PROPERTY.

BUT OF COURSE, WE HAD TO CONSIDER FEMA CONSIDERATIONS FOR SAFETY AS WELL AS CITY GUIDELINES.

THERE WAS ONE LOCATION STOOD OUT AS BEING THE MOST LOGICAL AND PRACTICAL, AND THAT IS WE HAVE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FACING THE ALLEY.

SO ALL OF THIS IS IS IN THE NORTHWEST REAR PORTION OF THE YARD.

I HAVE A VIDEO HERE OF OF THE SO YOU CAN GET AN IDEA FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT.

IT'S THIS LITTLE VIDEO WILL SHOW YOU WALKING THROUGH ENTERING IN OUR DRIVEWAY.

TURNING TO THE RIGHT. TO THE LEFT IS THE LA THAT I MENTIONED, WHICH FACES THE WINDOWS OF THE OF THE HOME.

THERE'S THE LA. AND THEN AS YOU WALK FURTHER WEST, THERE IS AN AREA THAT IS REALLY THE MECHANICALS OF THE HOME WHERE WE HAVE OUR AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM. THERE'S A A RAISED PLATFORM FOR SAFETY, AND THIS WALL IS THE EDGE OF OUR AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM.

IT THIS AREA IS SHROUDED BY BY HEDGES AND TREES ON ALL SIDES.

THERE'S NOTHING VISIBLE FROM THE ALLEY, AND THE ALLEY IS THROUGH THAT HEDGE, BASICALLY.

SO NOTHING IS VISIBLE FROM THE ALLEY. AND IN ADDITION, THERE'S THIS IS THE AIR CONDITIONING PLATFORM.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, WHEN WE DESIGNED THE HOUSE, WE DIDN'T MAKE THE PLATFORM EVEN BIGGER TO ACCOMMODATE.

BUT THERE WERE SOME ISSUES ABOUT ORDINANCES, ABOUT HOW CLOSE A GENERATOR COULD BE TO THAT.

SO WE DIDN'T QUITE REALIZE THE IMPORTANCE OF IT AT THE TIME.

THIS IS AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR THE PLACEMENT OF THE PLATFORM FOR A GENERATOR.

GENERATOR. THE REAR YARD, IT'S AGAIN SHIELDED ON ALL SIDES.

THERE ARE NO TREES TO BE TAKEN DOWN. LITERALLY.

IT'S AN EMPTY AREA OF OUR REAR YARD. IT'S AN IDEAL LOCATION AS WELL, BECAUSE JUST TO THE LEFT IS THE 500 GALLON PROPANE TANK, WHICH WOULD SERVE THE GENERATOR. SO THIS UNFORTUNATELY, THIS LOCATION IS 21.25FT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, AND YOUR PARTICULAR RULES REQUIRE 25FT. SO WE ARE SHORT A LITTLE BIT A VIEW FROM ABOVE.

YOU CAN SEE THE LOCATION RELATIVE TO THE ALLEY.

THIS IS A GOOGLE MAPS VISION. SO YOU CAN SEE THE ARROW THAT SHOWS APPROXIMATELY WHERE THE GENERATOR WOULD PLACE.

AGAIN, 2020 FIVE FEET FROM THE LINE WOULD PUT US INTO THE AIR CONDITIONING PAD.

AND THERE THERE WAS ONLY ONE OTHER PLACE ON THE PROPERTY.

THIS IS WHERE THE GENERATOR WOULD BE PLACED. AND SEE MY LITTLE SIGN THAT SAYS PROPOSED GENERATOR.

THAT'S ABOUT WHERE IT WOULD BE PLACED. AND YOU CAN SEE IT'S QUITE SHIELDED FROM NEIGHBORS, FROM ANYONE WALKING DOWN THE ALLEY. THE ONE PLACE THAT DID QUALIFY TO PLACE IT WOULD BE TO CHOP DOWN THE TREES OF THE LA AND PLACE THE GENERATOR RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE MAIN GARDEN.

AS YOU CAN IMAGINE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WANT TO DO TO CHOP DOWN TREES WHEN WE HAVE THIS EMPTY SPACE AVAILABLE.

SO WE ARE REQUESTING THAT YOU GIVE US CONSIDERATION TO PLACE THE GENERATOR IN NEAR THE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS. WE CERTAINLY HOPE YOU WILL SUPPORT THIS. IT'S AN IDEAL LOCATION, SHIELDED FROM EVERYONE.

OUR NEIGHBORS WHO ARE PARKER AND MILES COLLIER HAVE WRITTEN LETTERS OF SUPPORT THAT SAY THEY ARE TOTALLY FINE WITH IT.

THEY HAVE A GENERATOR JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FENCE AS OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE REAR DO AS WELL.

SO WE ARE HOPING THAT YOU WILL AGREE TO IT. AND WE MAY HAVE MADE A COMMITMENT TO SHIELD IT WITH BUSHES AND EVERYTHING ELSE SO THAT

[01:25:09]

WE NOTHING IS VISIBLE AND THE SOUND IS MUFFLED TO THE EXTENT POSSIBLE.

SO THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU, MISS VERMILLION, FOR YOUR EXCELLENT PRESENTATION.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONER? OH, VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU, MISS VERMILLION. I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS THAT YOU PURCHASED THAT HOME OR THE PROPERTY, RATHER IN 2007, AND THEN IT WAS DEMOLISHED AND REBUILT IN 2009.

RIGHT. IT WAS FINISHED IN 2009. AND YOU MADE A STATEMENT ABOUT CONSIDERING PLACEMENT OF A GENERATOR AT THE TIME THAT YOU WERE BUILDING IT. RIGHT. BUT YOU AND YOU MADE A STATEMENT THAT YOU DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE DECISION AT THAT TIME.

COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHAT YOU MEAN? THE RULES OF THE TIME ACTUALLY DID PERMIT A GENERATOR IN THE CONTEXT, AND THEN THE RULES TIGHTENED UP A BIT. SO IT'S 25FT NOW.

BUT WE HADN'T BEEN THROUGH A HURRICANE. WE'RE FROM CHICAGO, AND WHILE WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A LOT OF COLD, WE HADN'T BEEN THROUGH THE EXPERIENCE THAT WE WENT THROUGH WITH TWO HURRICANES.

SO WE WE DIDN'T CONSIDER IT AS CRITICAL AS WE PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE, BUT GIVEN THE POWER OUTAGES THAT WE EXPERIENCED, WE REALIZE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS TO PROTECT OUR HOME AS OUR NEIGHBORS HAVE AS WELL. AND WE HOPE YOU WOULD CONSIDER THIS 40IN TO BE ACCEPTABLE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER. KRAMER 40IN. RIGHT. THREE. IT'S THREE AND A HALF.

40IN. 40IN? YEAH. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT OUT LOUD.

40IN. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER PETRANOFF. THIS IS JUST A COMMENT FOR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE GETTING A LOT OF THESE LONG AFTER I GO ON COUNCIL, THAT THE RECOGNITION OF ALL OF THESE HURRICANES THAT WE'VE GOTTEN.

AND WE, ON THE OTHER HAND, ARE ENCOURAGING PEOPLE TO BUILD RESILIENCY, INCLUDING HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF OUR OWN MONEY THAT IS BEING INVESTED IN BUILDING RESILIENCY.

MAYBE AT SOME WORKSHOP WE CAN TALK ABOUT HOW TO HANDLE THESE KINDS OF THINGS, BECAUSE MORE AND MORE ARE GOING TO BE COMING FORWARD.

AND I THINK THESE ARE THE KIND OF GENERATORS OF THE KINDS OF THINGS WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. GO TO THE STAFF REPORT.

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING.

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY CLERK.

I'M TESHIMA LEWIS WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. BEFORE USE VARIANCE PETITION 25 V6 TO ALLOW AN INSTALLATION OF A HOME GENERATOR TO BE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 21.5FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, WHERE A 25 FOOT MINIMUM REAR YARD IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO SECTION 56, 41 AND 58 176 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES ON THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 255 FIRST AVENUE NORTH.

THE. THE VERMILION FAMILY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN JUNE OF 2007.

AT THE TIME THE PROPERTY WAS DEMOLISHED SHORTLY THEREAFTER, IT WAS RECONSTRUCTED IN 2009.

AT THE SAME TIME, THERE WAS A TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE SECTION OF THE CODE 5641, WHICH PROHIBITED INSTALLATION OF MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT INTO THE BUILDING, INTO THE REAR YARDS OR SIDE YARDS, OR ANY YARD.

AND SO THE INTENT WAS TO KEEP THAT WITHIN THE BUILDINGS ENVELOPE.

HOWEVER, WE IT UNDERSTOOD THAT THERE WERE PROPERTIES THAT WERE EXISTING PRIOR TO 2006, SO IT ALLOWED FOR AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE YARD FOR 36IN.

BUT THIS REQUEST IS REQUESTING TO ENCROACH INTO THE REAR YARD.

THIS PETITION WAS HEARD BEFORE THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD ON NOVEMBER 12TH, 2025, WHERE IT WAS THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL BEFORE YOUR BODY, 6 TO 0, AND STAFF HAD APPLIED THE VARIANCE CRITERIA TO THE REQUEST AND TO ALLOW THE INSTALLATION OF THE HOME GENERATOR TO BE LOCATED 21.5FT FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, AND FOUND THAT THRESHOLD CRITERIA TWO, THREE, FOUR, SIX, AND SEVEN MEETS THE CRITERIA AND ADDITIONAL CRITERIA ONE, TWO, THREE AND FIVE WERE ALSO MET.

ADDITIONAL CRITERIA. NUMBER FOUR IS NOT APPLICABLE.

[01:30:01]

HOWEVER, THRESHOLD CRITERIA ONE AND FIVE HAVE NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY MET BECAUSE THE LITERAL INTERPRETATION MAY BE ACHIEVED AND ALL REASONABLE STEPS TO MITIGATE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WERE NOT FULLY DEMONSTRATED.

SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE REQUEST.

STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ONE.

THE APPROVED HOME GENERATOR SHALL ENCROACH NO MORE THAN 3.5FT INTO THE REQUIRED MINIMUM REAR YARD, AND SHALL BE SHIELDED ENTIRELY BY PLANT MATERIAL, FENCING, OR A COMBINATION THEREOF.

TWO THE PETITIONERS AND THEIR SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST SHALL ABIDE BY THE VARIANCE GRANTED VIA PETITION 25 V6, AND ANY FURTHER ENCROACHMENT OR EXPANSION BEYOND THE THRESHOLD ESTABLISHED IN THIS VARIANCE SHALL REQUIRE A NEW VARIANCE PETITION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PAB.

THE PAB BOARD MEMBERS ALSO ADDED A THIRD CONDITION, WHICH INCLUDED MECHANISMS TO MITIGATE NOISE EMISSION, WILL BE INSTALLED. THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MISS. WHAT WAS THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF APPROVAL? WITH THREE CONDITIONS. BUT THE LAST ONE YOU JUST THE LAST ONE WAS ADDED BY THE PAB TO FOR MECHANISMS TO MITIGATE NOISE EMISSION WILL BE INSTALLED.

SO IT WAS GENERALLY DECIDED. OKAY. YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

DIDN'T KNOW THAT THAT WAS A POSSIBILITY. THANK YOU. THEY DID.

THE PAB OPTED NOT TO SPECIFY WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

IT COULD BE LANDSCAPING. IT COULD BE FENCING.

IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, AT THEIR DISCRETION. BUT ANY MITIGATION EFFORTS THAT THEY COULD MAKE.

OKAY. I THOUGHT IT WAS SOMETHING TO THE UNIT ITSELF.

NO, IT WAS JUST THEY DIDN'T WANT TO SPECIFY, BUT THEY WANTED TO LEAVE IT UP TO THE PETITIONER TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT WAS. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL MEMBER CHRISTMAN. I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON COUNCILWOMAN COMMENT AND EVEN TAKE IT A LITTLE FURTHER. THE THIS IS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF WHY, AND I'VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE.

OTHERS HAVE SAID IT TO WHY WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR VARIANCE ORDINANCE, WHICH I WAS A, A LEADING ADVOCATE FOR. AND IT'S BEEN AN IMPORTANT ADDITION TO OUR ARSENAL OF TOOLS HERE IN THE 4 OR 5 YEARS IT'S BEEN IN PLACE. BUT WE DESIGNED IT AIMED AT LARGER COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES AND TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT MAJOR CONCESSIONS ARE NOT APPROVED WILLY NILLY, AND ITS APPLICATION, OFTEN TO SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES, IS NOT BEEN A GOOD FIT AND FOR SMALL VARIANCES.

WE SHOULDN'T EVEN BE SEEING THEM HERE. I MEAN, YOU SHOULD BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED, FIRST OF ALL.

AND AND WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD SOONER RATHER THAN LATER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO BEST DO THAT.

AND I KNOW PLANNING STAFF HAS BEEN LOOKING AT IT, AND BUT THIS IS JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO TO MAKE THAT POINT.

ON THE SUBJECT OF GENERATORS, IF YOU TALK TO ANY HOME BUILDER OR REMODELER IN NAPLES, THEY WILL TELL YOU THAT WITH EXISTING HOMES, FIGURING OUT WAYS TO ACCOMMODATE GENERATORS IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CHALLENGES.

AND AGAIN, WE WANT TO, AS OUR RHETORIC ALWAYS SUGGEST HERE AT COUNCIL, TO TRY TO INCENTIVIZE THE HOMEOWNERS TO CONTINUE TO LIVE IN EXISTING HOMES AND NEW BUYERS TO BUY EXISTING HOMES, RATHER THAN SEE THEM TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH NEW, OFTEN BIGGER HOMES.

THE GENERATOR QUESTION HAS BECOME ALMOST AS MUCH A A, AN ESSENTIAL AS AIR CONDITIONING.

AND AND SO YOU KNOW, WHETHER IT'S IN A SEPARATE CODE TO, TO DEAL WITH, GENERATE SEPARATE CODE ITEM TO DEAL WITH GENERATORS, IN ADDITION TO HOW WE DEAL WITH SMALL VARIANCES, WHETHER IT'S TIED TOGETHER, WHETHER IT'S BOTH. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE BEST WAY TO APPROACH IT IS, BUT BUT CAN WE DISCUSS THAT IN CORRESPONDENCE? SURE. WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. I CAN CHIME IN.

WE WILL BE COMING BEFORE YOU. NOT THIS MONTH, OBVIOUSLY, BUT JANUARY AND FEBRUARY WITH A WORKSHOP DISCUSSION ABOUT GENERATORS.

THIS IS ONE OF AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS IS A TOPIC WE HAVE THIS CONVERSATION WITH HOMEOWNERS AND CONTRACTORS ALMOST EVERY DAY AT THIS POINT.

AND SO THERE IS WE WILL BE COMING FORWARD FOR A DISCUSSION ON HOW TO ADDRESS THIS IN, IN THE FUTURE, WHETHER IT'S THROUGH A WAIVER PROCESS SIMILAR TO FENCES AND WALLS, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM A VARIANCE, OR WHETHER WE WANT TO AMEND THE MECHANICAL SECTION OF THE CODE, WE DO ALLOW ENCROACHMENTS FOR OTHER MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO GENERATORS.

[01:35:01]

SO THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS ON HOW WE CAN ADDRESS THIS. BUT WE WE HEAR YOU. AND SO IT'S IT'S IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE CALENDAR SOON.

YES. GOOD. YEAH. AND SO I JUST I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THOSE POINTS AND I CERTAINLY SUPPORT THIS PETITION.

THANK YOU. MADAM MAYOR. I JUST WANTED TO GET ONE POINT OF MR. YOUNG. I'M SORRY. JUST BECAUSE THERE IS NO SORRY.

I BEG YOUR PARDON? I SAID JANUARY, AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE JANUARY.

IT THE POINT IS, IS ERICA AND WE HAD A DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY OF WHERE WE CAN HAVE A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO THINGS.

WE'D COME BACK AT A WORKSHOP. THE FIRST WORKSHOP WOULD BE AVAILABLE IS MARCH BECAUSE OF THE BREAK JANUARY MEETINGS AND THEN THE NEW COUNCIL BEING ELECTED.

SO I JUST WENT FOR POINT OF CLARIFICATION. IT'LL BE ANOTHER ITEM THAT WE DO ON OUR LOOK AHEAD, AND IT IS LIKELY TO BE MARCH. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU.

JUST STAYING FOCUSED ON THIS PETITION. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER, I KNOW THE PETITIONER CAN MAKE FINAL COMMENTS, BUT I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION WHENEVER YOU'RE READY. THANK YOU. NO FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF.

THERE'S NO PUBLIC COMMENT IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE YOUR CLOSING REMARKS.

YES, I'D FIRST LIKE TO SAY TESHIMA LEWIS CONDUCTED HERSELF IN THE MOST PROFESSIONAL WAY, AND THE CITY SHOULD BE PROUD TO HAVE HER IN YOUR EMPLOY.

YES. THANK YOU. AND I'M SO HAPPY YOU MENTIONED ANDREA.

CLARK BROWN. SHE WAS A GREAT CONTRIBUTION IN BUILDING AS A DESIGNER FOR HOMES.

AND YOUR HOME IS VERY BEAUTIFUL, SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. THANK YOU. MAYOR, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 11, A RESOLUTION DETERMINING PETITION 20 5V6 WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS THAT STAFF PROVIDED.

SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

NO FURTHER CONVERSATION. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES.

COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHISON.

NO. MAYOR. HARTMAN. YES. PASSES 6 TO 1. WITH THAT GOOD LUCK.

WE MOVE TO 11 B. HAPPY HOLIDAYS. STACY. YES. THANK YOU.

[11.B) A Resolution for the Purpose of Determining Outdoor Dining Petition 25-OD19 Pursuant to Section 56-126 of the Code of Ordinances to Allow Outdoor Dining on Public Property Consisting of 7 Tables, 18 Chairs, 6 Umbrellas, and 2 Heaters, and Outdoor Dining on Private Property Consisting of 6 Tables, 30 Chairs, and 2 Heaters for Chops City Grill, a Restaurant Operated by Phelan Chops Naples #133, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Located at 837 5th Avenue South, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

MAYOR. A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING OUTDOOR DINING. PETITION 2501 NINE, PURSUANT TO SECTION 56 126 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SEVEN TABLES, 18 CHAIRS, SIX UMBRELLAS AND TWO HEATERS, AND OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SIX TABLES, 30 CHAIRS AND TWO HEATERS FOR CHOP CITY GRILL, A RESTAURANT OPERATED BY PHELAN CHOPS.

NAPLES NUMBER 133 LLC, A FLORIDA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOCATED AT 837 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE. THANK YOU, SWEARINGEN, FOR ALL THOSE INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SUPPORTED.

PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR? I SWEAR OR AFFIRM THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE.

BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH. OKAY.

THANK YOU. DISCLOSURES COUNCIL COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I'VE HAD NO CONTACT OTHER THAN A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

COMMUNICATION WITH STAFF. KRISTEN FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE STAFF.

CONVERSATION ONLY KRAMER, SO FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND SPOKE WITH STAFF FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF. VICE MAYOR. YEAH, I'M I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, BEEN A CUSTOMER TO THIS LOCATION AND OTHER THAN THAT, NO CONTACT. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, VISITED THE SITE AND WITH THAT KNOW MET WITH STAFF.

NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION. MORNING. PETITIONERS AGENT, MISS PASSIDOMO.

GOOD MORNING. THANK YOU. MAYOR HEITMANN, VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL.

I KNOW YOU HAVE A VERY BUSY AGENDA TODAY. SO IN RESPECT OF THAT, I'LL.

I'LL BE AS BRIEF AS I CAN. YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE RESTAURANT.

MR. FALLIN. FALLIN FAMILY BRANDS ACQUIRED THE RESTAURANT IN 2023.

HAS BEEN OPERATING IT TO THE FIVE STAR STANDARD THAT THAT WE ALL KNOW FROM SHOPS IN 2023, A OUTDOOR DINING PLAN WAS APPROVED DUE TO CHANGE IN OWNERSHIP.

THE SOLE REASON WE ARE IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IS A MINOR CHANGE TO THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

I HIGHLIGHT IN RED THE ADDITIONS, WHICH IS ONE ADDITIONAL TABLE IN THE VILLA ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE VILLA, AND ADDITIONAL CHAIRS FOR TABLES THAT ARE ALREADY APPROVED IN THE VILLA.

[01:40:02]

THIS IS ALL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO CHANGES AT ALL TO FIFTH AVENUE.

WE SHOW, JUST FOR CONTEXT, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE VIA, THE PRIME SOCIAL RESTAURANT HAS ADDED AND IN FACT IS INSTALLED TODAY.

LANDSCAPING. SO WHEN YOU PARK IN THAT REAR PARKING LOT, THIS HAS BECOME AN INCREDIBLY WELCOMING VIA.

IT'S A VERY DIFFERENT LANDSCAPE THAN IT WAS EVEN IN 2023.

MR. FALLON FEELS THAT THIS ADDITIONAL TABLE IS OF GREAT VALUE TO THE RESTAURANT.

YOUR FIRE MARSHAL HAS APPROVED ITS LOCATION FROM A LIFE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

AND WITH THAT, I DO HAVE MR. MCLEAN HERE WHO DESIGNED THE LIFE SAFETY PLANS.

SO THEY'RE THEY'RE THEY'RE FROM A LICENSED ARCHITECT, BUT I HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.

THANK YOU. COUNCIL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT, COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER? SO I WENT AND LOOKED AT THIS DURING THE BEFORE THE DURING THE TREE LIGHTING THING.

IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL IT? YEAH. AND IT'S THE SAME LIKE THIS, THE WAY IT WAS SET UP AT WHATEVER NIGHT THAT WAS.

SORRY. MY DAYS ARE RUNNING TOGETHER, BUT. IS IT LIKE THIS ON THE ON THE SCREEN, OR IS YOU ADD ONE TO WHAT'S THERE? WHAT WAS THERE THEN? IT'S LIKE THIS ON THE SCREEN.

SO WHAT WAS THERE THEN WAS PROBABLY THESE OTHER EXISTING TABLES IN BLACK.

SO WE'RE ADDING ONE TABLE ON THE SOUTHERNMOST SIDE MORE PROXIMATE TO TO THE ENTRANCE.

YEAH. I DIDN'T KNOW IF BECAUSE TABLES WERE LIKE IT WAS A SPECIAL EVENT.

I DIDN'T KNOW IF THEY WENT AHEAD AND SET IT UP THIS WAY OR NOT. I CAN'T REMEMBER, BUT I WAS JUST WONDERING.

OKAY, THANKS. VERY SUCCESSFUL EVENT THOUGH BY THE CITY.

SO CONGRATULATIONS. RIGHT. BUT I HAD THE SAME QUESTION WHETHER THAT WAS ALREADY IN PLACE OR NOT.

SO IT SHOULD NOT BE IN PLACE. THERE SHOULD BE THE TABLES THAT ARE ON THE EXISTING LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT.

OKAY. STAFF, REPORT TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 2519 IS TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SEVEN TABLES, 18 CHAIRS, SIX UMBRELLAS AND TWO HEATERS, AND OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SIX TABLES, 30 CHAIRS AND TWO HEATERS FOR CHOPS. CITY GRILL, A RESTAURANT OPERATED BY CHOPS NAPLES ONE THROUGH THREE LLC AND LOCATED WITHIN THE FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT AT 837 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH.

AS YOU ARE AWARE, CHOPS HAVE BEEN IN A RESTAURANT WITH THE CITY FOR ABOUT 20 YEARS, AND IN THAT TIME THEY HAVE RECEIVED SEVERAL OUTDOOR DINING PETITION APPROVALS DATING AS EARLY AS 2004. THE MOST RECENT PETITION WAS IN 2023 VIA RESOLUTION 2023 15235, WHICH WAS APPROVED TO ALLOW OUTDOOR DINING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY CONSISTING OF SEVEN TABLES, 18 CHAIRS, SIX UMBRELLAS AND TWO HEATERS, AND OUTDOOR DINING AND PRIVATE PROPERTY WITHIN THE PEDESTRIAN VIA.

VIA. VIA. CONSISTING OF FIVE TABLES, 20 CHAIRS AND TWO HEATERS, THIS PETITION DOES NOT PROPOSE TO AMEND THE CONFIGURATION OF THE OUTDOOR DINING AND PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT RATHER TO ADD ONE TABLE AND TWO CHAIRS TO PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A TOTAL OF 13 TABLES, 48 CHAIRS, SIX UMBRELLAS AND FOUR HEATERS.

THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN, WHICH WAS PREPARED BY MHK ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING, WAS APPROVED BY OUR FIRE MARSHAL.

IN ADDITION, SECTION 5811 3413 REQUIRES THAT THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD APPROVED THE OUTDOOR DINING IN THE FIFTH AVENUE SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THIS ITEM WILL BE BEFORE THE DRB ON DECEMBER 19TH, 2025.

PETITION NUMBER 25 DRB 54. PUBLICATION FOR THIS HEARING WAS COMPLETED ON NOVEMBER 28TH, 2025, AND A TOTAL OF 405 LETTERS WERE MAILED TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AS OF TODAY'S DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED NO CORRESPONDENCE.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 56 1262 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

STAFF HAVE REVIEWED THE PETITION FOR OUTDOOR DINING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY LOCATED AT 837 FIFTH AVENUE SOUTH, AND FIND THAT THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET. THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN PREPARED BY MHK ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025, WAS APPROVED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL. SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 25 OD 19.

STAFF RECOMMEND THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. ONE.

[01:45:01]

THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA SHALL BE LIMITED TO 514FT² WITH A MAXIMUM OF SEVEN TABLES, 18 CHAIRS, SIX UMBRELLAS AND TWO HEATERS ON PUBLIC PROPERTY AND 697FT² WITH A MAXIMUM OF SIX TABLES, 30 CHAIRS AND TWO HEATERS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, AS CONFIGURED ON THE APPROVED LIFE SAFETY PLAN PREPARED BY MHK.

ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING AND DATED ON NOVEMBER 18TH, 2025.

ANY FUTURE EXPANSION, MODIFICATION OR ENHANCEMENT TO THIS OUTDOOR DINING SHALL REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

TWO. THE TRAVEL DISTANCES, AS APPROVED BY THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN, SHALL REMAIN FREE AND CLEAR OF ALL OBSTRUCTIONS, WHETHER TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT, TO ALLOW SAFE PEDESTRIAN MOBILITY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE REQUEST IN THE MEMO AND THEN THE RESOLUTION.

SO IT SAYS WE'RE GOING FROM FIVE TABLES TO SIX TABLES, 20 CHAIRS, 30 CHAIRS ON THE MEMO, BUT ON THE RESOLUTION, DOES IT GO? IS THAT CONSISTENT? SORRY. I THINK I JUST READ THE 2004. IS THAT CONSISTENT WITH SEVEN TABLES, 18 CHAIRS, TWO UMBRELLAS AND TWO. HEATERS.

SO IS IT SEVEN TABLES OR. MISS LEWIS? MISS MARTIN.

I'M LOOKING FOR IT HERE. IF IT IF IT HELPS PROVIDE CLARITY ON THE TABLE IS THE IS THE ADJUSTMENT.

THE PREAMBLES IN THE RESOLUTION ACKNOWLEDGED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN PUBLIC AND PRIVATE.

WE REVIEW THE RESOLUTION, AND WE FIND THAT IT MEETS THE PETITION IN FRONT OF YOU TODAY IN TERMS OF WHAT'S EXISTING ON PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, AND WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED ON PRIVATE. YEAH, CORRECT.

SO. ARE YOU SAYING? NO. GO AHEAD. TABLES AND CHAIRS IN PUBLIC ON PUBLIC PROPERTY IS WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTION.

AND THAT WILL REMAIN. THAT WILL NOT BE ALTERED. THE ONLY CHANGES TO THE PRIVATE TABLES AND CHAIRS.

THE TABLES AND CHAIRS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THANK YOU.

YEAH. THEY'RE ASKING TO, YOU KNOW, AFFIRM THE THE PUBLIC PROPERTY, OUTDOOR DINING, WHICH IS THE SEVEN TABLES AND 18 CHAIRS.

SO DOES THAT NOW ENCROACH INTO THE FRONT DOOR? NO THERE ARE. DO WE HAVE A LIFE SAFETY PLAN? THIS EXHIBIT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE CLEARANCE IS THERE.

THE THE TABLES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. ARE SMALLER.

YEAH. OKAY. THESE TABLES HERE AND THESE BECAUSE THEY ARE THEY KIND OF SPLIT THE THE DIFFERENCE THERE.

THEY'RE PARTIALLY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY AND PARTIALLY ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, BUT THEY ARE INCLUDED IN THE THE PUBLIC AND THEN THE ONLY ADDITION.

SO THAT'S NOT THERE'S NO CHANGE PROPOSED HERE.

THE ONLY ADDITION IS THIS TABLE HERE. AND THEN ONE MORE CHAIR TO EACH OF THOSE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

OKAY. SO LEAVING HOW MUCH SPACE LEFT IN TO THE WALKWAY IN THE VIA THE INCHES.

ABOUT 36IN. AND THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT'S NOT A SIDEWALK.

IT'S NOT A PUBLIC SIDEWALK. SO IT'S NOT THERE'S THERE IS A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE THE THE CLEAR DISTANCE ON A PUBLIC SIDEWALK, BUT THAT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S JUST CONSIDERED A WALKWAY ON ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. PUBLIC COMMENT I HAVE. I THOUGHT THAT THE KAREN LARSEN WANTED TO SPEAK ABOUT THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL.

NOT THIS ITEM. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. MAYOR.

OH, I WAS CONCLUDING REMARKS. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU. COUNCIL. I WILL SAY, BEFORE I MAKE THE MOTION THAT I WENT AND CHECKED IT OUT, AND I THOUGHT IT WORKED, LIKE I WAS LIKE, OH, THIS IS AND IT'S NOT GOING TO GET ANY BUSIER THAN IT WAS WHEN I WAS LOOKING AT IT LIKE THAT WAS NUTS. BUT SO ANYWAY, WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 11 B A RESOLUTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING OUTDOOR DINING.

PETITION 20 5-OD 19 WITH THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED BY STAFF.

[01:50:03]

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE CALL COUNCIL. VICE MAYOR HUTCHISON.

YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. PENMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

KRISEMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CRAMER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. YES. THANK YOU.

COUNCIL PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. AND. THAT TAKES US TO ALMOST 1025 AND IT'S TIME FOR A BREAK. SO WE WILL TAKE A TEN MINUTE BREAK AND RETURN TO ITEM 611 C.

OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM OUR SHORT BREAK. AND CONTINUING ON WITH ITEM 11 C MR.

[11.C) A Resolution Determining Conditional Use Petition 25-CU6 Pursuant to Section 46-34 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, Approving Off-Site Parking within 600 Feet Pursuant to Section 50-102(B)(2) of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, and Approving a Parking Needs Analysis Pursuant to Section 50-107 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Naples, for the Properties Located at 1148 3rd Street South, Owned by Olde Naples Building LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company, and 375 Broad Avenue South, Owned by Triple “A” Building LLC, A Florida Limited Liability Company, More Fully Described Herein; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

MCCONNELL. YES, MAYOR. SO I DO WANT TO CLARIFY, AND I KNOW WE'VE TRIED THIS A COUPLE TIMES THIS YEAR.

11 C AND 11 D ARE COMPANION ITEMS TO THE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER, SAME CONSULTANTS, AND THEY DO HAVE ONE PRESENTATION. HOWEVER, BOTH OF THEM HAVE DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND BOTH OF THEM OPERATE ON THEIR OWN.

SO I'M JUST PUTTING THAT OUT THERE. ON HOW COUNCIL WANTS TO HANDLE THIS, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE RECORD MATTERS IN THESE PROCEEDINGS, AND I DON'T SEE US HANDLING 11 C WITHOUT QUESTIONS COMING UP OF 11 D.

SO I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION ON HOW YOU'D LIKE TO HANDLE THAT BEFORE I READ EITHER BOTH TITLES OR WE JUST HANDLE THEM SEPARATELY.

HAVING ONE PRESENTATION, TWO SEPARATE READING OF TITLES AND TWO SEPARATE VOTES.

OKAY. SO SHOULD I OPEN COUNSEL AND OPPOSED TO THAT? SHOULDN'T WE READ THEM BOTH TOGETHER SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM BOTH? WELL, HE WOULD HAVE TO READ THE RESOLUTION SEPARATELY.

READ BOTH. BUT TO MAYOR'S POINT, IT WOULD BE ONE PRESENTATION. BECAUSE IF NOT, THEN WE WOULD HANDLE 11 C THE APPLICANT WOULD JUST SIMPLY ADOPT THEIR PRESENTATION UNTIL 11 D, SO IT MAY EASE THE CONVERSATION AND GIVE YOU ALL FREEDOM TO ASK QUESTIONS ON BOTH ITEMS. I'M ALL FOR THAT. OKAY, NO ONE'S OPPOSED. OKAY.

SO WITH THAT, I WILL READ BOTH 11 C AND 11 D.

11. C A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 20 5Q6.

PURSUANT TO SECTIONS 4634 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

CITY OF NAPLES APPROVING OFF SITE PARKING WITHIN 600FT PURSUANT TO SECTION 5102, SUBPARAGRAPH B, TWO OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES, AND APPROVING A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5107 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES, CITY OF NAPLES FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH, OWNED BY OLDE NAPLES BUILDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, AND 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, OWNED BY TRIPLE A BUILDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. OH, AND 11 A RESOLUTION DETERMINING OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 2501 EIGHT.

PURSUANT TO SECTION 56 126 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW 15 TABLES AND 76 CHAIRS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A NEW RESTAURANT IN THE OLDE NAPLES BUILDING WITHIN THE THIRD STREET COMMERCIAL AREA. SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY OLDE NAPLES BUILDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HEREIN, PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

COMPLETE. THANK YOU. MADAM CLERK, SWEARING IN, INTENDING TO OFFER TESTIMONY WHO WERE NOT PREVIOUSLY SWORN IN.

PLEASE RISE AND RAISE YOUR RIGHT HAND. DO YOU SWEAR OR AFFIRM THAT THE TESTIMONY YOU'RE ABOUT TO GIVE BE THE TRUTH, THE WHOLE TRUTH, AND NOTHING BUT THE TRUTH? THANK YOU.

COUNCIL DISCLOSURES. COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN. I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE.

I'VE HAD NO CONTACT WITH THE PETITIONERS AND SPOKEN WITH STAFF BRIEFLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE AND COMMUNICATIONS WITH STAFF FAMILIAR SINCE THE LAST TIME WE CONSIDERED THIS FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, OBVIOUSLY, AND NO CONTACT WITH PETITIONERS OR PETITIONERS.

REPRESENTATIVES REVIEWED EMAILS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS INTERESTED PARTIES IN THE COMMUNITY AND HAD CONVERSATION WITH STAFF. THANK YOU. KRAMER, FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, SPOKE WITH STAFF AND GOT THE SAME OR MANY OF THE SAME EMAILS.

COUNCIL MEMBER FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE, DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, RECEIVED MANY EMAILS.

VICE MAYOR YEAH. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. RECEIVED EMAILS.

MY GOVERNMENT EMAIL ACCOUNT. NO CONTACT WITH PETITIONER PETITIONERS AGENTS.

THANK YOU. FAMILIAR WITH THE SITE. MET WITH STAFF AND REVIEWED SEVERAL EMAILS WITH THAT.

[01:55:03]

GOOD MORNING. GREAT. GREAT MORNING. MY NAME IS TIM MCCARTHY.

I'M A PARTNER AND MANAGING PRINCIPAL AT HART HOWARD, AN INTERDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OFFICES IN SAN FRANCISCO AND NEW YORK.

I'M A FLORIDA LICENSED ARCHITECT. MY CV IS ON FILE.

HAVING TESTIFIED BEFORE THIS COUNCIL ON A FEW DIFFERENT OCCASIONS PRIOR TO TODAY.

AND I'M REGISTERED WITH THE ETHICS COMMISSION.

I'M HERE TODAY ON BEHALF OF A LARGER TEAM GATHERED WITH US.

THAT INCLUDES MR. RICK DOODY, WHO WILL BE THE RESTAURANT'S OPERATOR.

HE'LL BE AVAILABLE FOR DISCUSSION IN A FEW MOMENTS.

WE HAVE OUR LEGAL TEAM WITH MARK, CLAY AND CHELSEA.

NORM TREBILCOCK IS OUR PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.

AND HE'LL HAVE A PRESENTATION HERE TODAY. AND THEN MR. GEORGE VUKOBRATOVIC, WHO'S THE BUILDING'S PROPERTY MANAGER.

BUT TODAY IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I'VE TESTIFIED IN MATTERS RELATING TO THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING.

DESPITE THAT, OVER THE LAST SEVEN YEARS MY FIRM HAS QUIETLY REPRESENTED THE BUILDING'S OWNER AS THEIR ARCHITECT, PATIENTLY WORKING THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS WITH KEY CITY STAFF AND, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SECURING PERMISSIONS TO BEGIN A REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE RELATED CONSTRUCTION SET OF ACTIVITIES.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, WHO WOULD NOT WANT TO REPAIR, MAINTAIN, REIMAGINE AND EXTEND INTO THE FUTURE THE CONTINUED USE OF THIS PIECE OF NAPLES HISTORY ON SCREEN. JUST SEEING THIS PHOTO OFFERS SO MANY STORIES.

AN ARCHITECT LIKE ME CAN SEE DETAILS SUCH AS THE CLAPBOARD SIDING, BRACKETS SUPPORTING FLYING ROOF RAFTERS, AND INSIDE THE BUILDING, THE DADE COUNTY PINE RAFTERS HIGH UP ABOVE SOMEONE FOCUSED ON ENERGY REDUCTION AND RESILIENCE PLANNING CAN SEE EXTENDED EAVES, SHEDDING WATER AND SHADING THE INTERIOR SCREENED PORCHES, ENABLING COMFORTABLE OUTDOOR LIVING AND UPPER CLEAR STORY FOR NATURAL VENTILATION OF RISING HOT AIR, AND AN ELEVATED CRAWL SPACE BELOW THE GROUND FLOOR TO ALLOW THE FREE MOVEMENT OF FLOOD WATERS.

OVER THE LAST 104 YEARS, AND AS A REGISTERED CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE, HISTORIANS CAN TALK ABOUT THE BUILDING'S ROLE IN THE HISTORY OF NAPLES, FROM CIVICS LESSONS, HOSTING CITY HALL GOVERNMENT TO COMMUNITY GATHERINGS, HOSTING PROM AND WORSHIP SERVICES TO RETAIL AND GROCERY.

MOST RECENTLY, AS FANTASIES AND SURE, THESE ARE GREAT STORIES TO TELL ANYWHERE IN NAPLES, BUT HERE IT'S NEXT TO YOUR HISTORIC PIER.

THAT EARLY MEANS OF 19TH CENTURY ARRIVAL TO NAPLES THAT IS STILL THE HEART OF THE THIRD STREET SOUTH HISTORIC DISTRICT.

LAST MONTH, OCTOBER, MARKED THE END OF MY 11TH YEAR WORKING HERE IN NAPLES.

IT'S A LOT OF PLANE FLIGHTS, AND NOW THAT I'M HERE TO START MY 12TH, I USED YESTERDAY'S PLANE FLIGHT TO REFLECT ON THAT JOURNEY.

I'VE BEEN PRIVILEGED TO WORK WITH VISIONARY LANDOWNERS, INSPIRED CITY STAFF AND PASSIONATE ELECTED OFFICIALS IN LEARNING ABOUT AND THEN PROTECTING KEY COMMUNITY RESOURCES. I'VE TAKEN ON BOARD FEEDBACK FROM HUNDREDS OF MEETINGS WITH THOUSANDS OF CITIZENS, AND USED THAT INFORMATION TO IMAGINE A RESILIENT MEANS OF EXTENDING NAPLES UNIQUE CHARM INTO THE FUTURE.

THE PETITIONS BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE NO DIFFERENT.

COLLECTIVELY, TODAY'S APPLICATIONS OFFER THIS BUILDING THE MEANS UNDER ORDINANCES ALREADY EMBEDDED IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO COMPLEMENT THE ECONOMIC VITALITY FOUND EACH NIGHT ON THIRD STREET AND BREATHED NEW LIFE INTO THIS BUILDING AT THE GATEWAY TO THE DISTRICT.

SPECIFICALLY, TODAY'S PETITIONS ONE. REQUEST OUTDOOR DINING UNDER SECTION 56 126 OF THE CITY CODE TWO.

REQUEST OFF SITE PARKING UNDER SECTION 50, 102, B TWO AND THREE.

REQUEST APPROVAL OF A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS UNDER SECTION 5107 OF THE CITY'S ORDINANCES.

I WAS NOT PRESENT AT ANY OF YOUR 2023 HEARINGS, AND SIMILARLY, I DID NOT ATTEND THE FOLLOW UP HEARING AT THE START OF 2025 WHEN YOU HEARD THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COURT APPOINTED SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

NEVERTHELESS, I DID WANT TO REINFORCE TODAY'S CONTINUED COMMITMENT TO THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE.

I WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO THE 2025 PROCEEDINGS TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE SPECIAL MAGISTRATE'S RECOMMENDATIONS WERE NOT ADOPTED.

[02:00:03]

SO, IF I MAY, PLEASE INDULGE ME FOR A BRIEF TRIP DOWN MEMORY LANE, BECAUSE THIS COUNSEL MADE THE FOLLOWING STATEMENTS PRIOR TO VOTING DOWN THAT DAY'S APPLICATION. THEREFORE SETTING THE STAGE FOR ME TO BE BEFORE YOU TODAY.

AT THE 35 MINUTE MARK OF THAT HEARING IN FEBRUARY, MR. CRISPIN REMINDED EVERYONE THAT, QUOTE, THERE ARE OTHER REMEDIES IN TERMS OF APPLYING FOR A VARIANCE OR PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT COULD BE PURSUED.

CLOSE QUOTE AT THE 41 MINUTE MARK. A FEW MINUTES LATER, THE CITY'S LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE, KARA MURPHY, STATED, QUOTE, YOU HAVE TO FIND A WAY TO PARK THE OUTDOOR DINING CLOSE QUOTE.

CONTINUING QUOTE THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS OR VARIANCE, THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

IT WOULD BE OVER AND ABOVE THE 76 SPACES. CLOSE QUOTE.

OF COURSE, THAT 76 SPACE QUOTATION WAS A REFERENCE TO JUDGE BRODY'S FINAL DETERMINATION.

THANKFULLY FOR ME, THE ROAD MAP CONTINUED TO BE OUTLINED IN A VERY, VERY HELPFUL MANNER BY COUNCILWOMAN PETRANOFF, WHO AT THE 42 MINUTE MARK STATED QUOTE, THEY CAN APPLY TO GET OUTDOOR DINING AND THE APPROPRIATE PARKING.

THERE'S A PROCESS FOR THAT THAT IS WELL KNOWN.

CLOSE QUOTE. VICE MAYOR HUTCHINSON THEN HELPED ALL OF US THROUGH HIS COMMENT AT THE 47 MINUTE MARK BY STATING, QUOTE, THERE'S TWO TOOLS CLOSE QUOTE, WHICH HE LATER CLARIFIED AT THE 65 MINUTE MARK BY SAYING, QUOTE, THE PETITIONER OWNS OTHER PROPERTIES, BOTH CONTIGUOUS AND NEARBY.

SO IF THERE'S GOING TO BE WORK ON ALTERNATIVES OR RIGHTS AROUND PARKING, JUST PLEASE LOOK AT THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES AND THE PARKING THAT THEY SUPPORT.

CLOSE QUOTE. HE FINISHED WITH QUOTE, I DON'T KNOW IF THE PARKING ACROSS THE STREET CAN BE DESIGNATED THERE, BUT JUST BE THOROUGH IN HOW WE LOOK AT PARKING AVAILABILITY FOR THIS PROPERTY.

CLOSE QUOTE. THANKS FOR INDULGING ME AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING ME MY NEW NORTH STAR.

THE TWO OPERATIVE PARKING RELATED TOOLS EMBEDDED IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE FOR DISCUSSION TODAY.

GIVEN THAT CONTEXT AND COACHING, TODAY'S REQUEST FOR OUTDOOR DINING MUST NOW GO THROUGH THIS COUNCIL AND BE EVALUATED BASED ON THE CRITERIA SET OUT IN YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE. SOME OF THE CRITERIA A THROUGH M IN THE CITY'S OUTDOOR DINING ORDINANCE IS TIED TO THE USE OF PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY.

THAT IS NOT AT ALL THE CASE IN TODAY'S APPLICATION FOR OUTDOOR DINING, WHICH IS ENTIRELY ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.

THEREFORE, THE LIST ON SCREEN HAS BEEN EDITED DOWN TO KEY CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERATION WITH TODAY'S APPLICATION.

WHILE WE'RE ON THIS SLIDE, LET'S KNOCK OUT THE CRITERIA BULLET POINTS ONE, TWO, THREE, AND FOUR AS LISTED HERE.

NUMBER ONE, THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA IS LOCATED FACING BROAD AND THIRD ACROSS THE STREET IN EACH DIRECTION IS ALSO C1 COMMERCIAL ZONING.

THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR DINING AREAS OF OPERATION WILL NOT BECOME A PUBLIC NUISANCE, NOR WILL IT INTERFERE WITH THE ACCESS TO THE ADJACENT TENANT, THE OLDE NAPLES HOTEL. TWO IT IS IN OUR OWN ENLIGHTENED SELF-INTEREST TO MAINTAIN THE AREA IN A CLEAN AND SAFE CONDITION, AND WE WILL DO SO. THREE NO ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE WILL BE FOUND IN THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA.

AND FOUR THE HOURS OF OPERATION OUTSIDE WILL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION INSIDE THE RESTAURANT.

I HAVE SOME FOLLOWING SLIDES TO ADDRESS THE REMAINING THREE BULLET POINTS FROM THIS SCREEN.

BULLET POINT NUMBER SEVEN ON THE PRECEDING SLIDE ASKED THAT KITCHEN AND BAR EQUIPMENT BE SCREENED FROM VIEW ON SCREEN IS ELLEN GOETZ'S LANDSCAPE DESIGN FOR THE PROPERTY. IN THE UPPER LEFT, THE OLD TENNIS SHOP ANNEX, FACING BROAD, CONCEALS THE OPERATIONS RELATED ACTIVITIES OF PROVISIONING THE RESTAURANT AND, ALONG THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, STAGGERED PLANTING IN THE SOUTH FACING SIDE YARD CREATES A VISUAL BAFFLE TO CONCEAL OPERATIONS FROM PEDESTRIANS ON THIRD STREET SOUTH.

BULLET POINT SIX ASKED THAT THE OUTDOOR DINING AREAS DO NOT INTRUDE UPON DESIGNATED PATHS OF EGRESS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT BULLET POINT RELATED TO LIFE SAFETY, THE ORDINANCE ALSO BEGINS WITH THE STATEMENT, QUOTE, AN OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT MAY BE ISSUED UPON APPROVAL BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OF THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

CLOSE QUOTE. SO A COUPLE OF OBSERVATIONS ON THIS SLIDE.

ONE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THIS PLAN, AND WE'RE ON TODAY'S AGENDA BECAUSE OF THEIR APPROVAL.

AND TWO, EACH EXIT POINT FROM WITHIN THE BUILDING'S GRAY INTERIOR ON SCREEN IS DESIGNATED ON THIS PLAN USING WHITE RECTANGLES SET INSIDE THAT GRAY OUTLINE.

THOSE WHITE RECTANGLES FORM PART OF THE BUILDING SEPARATELY.

APPROVED BUILDING PERMIT UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

AND FOR PURPOSES OF TODAY'S APPLICATION, EACH OF THOSE DESIGNATED EXIT DOORS HAVE DASHED BLUE LINES DESCRIBING AND DEFINING EGRESS PATHS THAT GET

[02:05:02]

PATRONS SAFELY ONTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IN THE EVENT OF EGRESS DURING AN EMERGENCY.

WHICH LEAVES US WITH THE NEED TO ADDRESS BULLET POINT NUMBER FIVE FROM THAT PRECEDING SLIDE QUOTE.

PARKING REQUIREMENTS WILL BE THREE SPACES FOR EVERY 1000FT² OF OUTDOOR DINING AREA.

CLOSE QUOTE. NOW, A FEW SLIDES AGO, I SHOWED A GREEN AND TEAL TONE AND MENTIONED THAT WE'RE SEEKING APPROVAL OF 2315FT² OF OUTDOOR DINING AT THE CODES PRESCRIBED PARKING RATIO, WHICH TIES PARKING COUNT TO THE NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET, NOT TO THE NUMBER OF TABLES NOR CHAIRS.

WE NEED TO PROVIDE SEVEN PARKING SPACES. I BEGAN TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM WITH AN AMAZING BLACK AND WHITE HISTORIC PHOTO IN THE BACKGROUND.

ON SCREEN HERE IS A FAINT RED LINE THAT DESCRIBES THE LEGAL PARCEL BOUNDARY SURROUNDING THAT HISTORIC BUILDING, AND THERE'S CLEARLY NOT A LOT OF LAND LEFT AROUND IT FOR PARKING.

SO THANKS TO YOUR COACHING IN FEBRUARY, WE ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY WITH SOME IDEAS ABOUT HOW TO ACCOMPLISH THIS BULLET POINT FIVE REQUIREMENT OF THE OUTDOOR DINING CRITERIA.

A KEY PART OF TODAY'S APPLICATION, SECTION 5100 2B2 OFF SITE PARKING IS ON SCREEN QUOTE.

WHEN PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES PREVENT THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SUCH PARKING FACILITIES UPON THE SAME LOT, THE FACILITIES MAY BE PROVIDED ON LAND WITHIN A RADIUS OF 600FT OF THE LOT, PROVIDED THE LAND IS ZONED SO AS TO PERMIT SUCH PARKING FACILITIES.

CLOSE QUOTE. THE ORDINANCE CONCLUDES THAT QUOTE.

THAT QUOTE WILL BE LIMITED TO ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIRED FOR A CHANGE OF SEATING AREA.

CLOSE QUOTE. SO LET'S DIVE INTO THE APPLICATION BEFORE YOU TODAY.

BASED ON THIS ORDINANCE, HERE'S A QUICK MAP ILLUSTRATING IN THE BOTTOM CENTER THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING PARCEL AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF BROAD AND THIRD, AND APPROXIMATELY 350FT EAST AND NORTH AT 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, IS A LOT WITH PARKING AREA PROVIDED.

THIS THEREFORE SATISFIES THE 600 FOOT LIMITATION SET OUT IN THE ORDINANCE.

THE SECOND CRITERIA IN THE OFF SITE PARKING ORDINANCE IS MAKING SURE THE LAND FOR OFF SITE PARKING IS ZONED TO PERMIT PARKING FACILITIES TAKEN FROM THE CITY'S ZONING MAPS AND ONLINE GIS RESOURCES. NUMBER THREE, 75 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH, IS IN THE SAME C-1 ZONING DISTRICT AS THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING.

MORE SPECIFICALLY, HERE'S AN ABBREVIATED DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE C-1 ZONING DISTRICT TAKEN FROM SECTION 58 532 OF YOUR CODE.

LAND USE NUMBER TWO IS TODAY'S CURRENT USE AS AN ART STUDIO, AND USE NUMBER NINE IS THE SECOND CURRENT USE TODAY AS AN UNPAID PARKING LOT FACILITY.

THE PARCEL'S USE IS MIXED. WHILE WE FEEL THOSE FEW SLIDES PROBABLY ILLUSTRATE, AT LEAST TO OUR SATISFACTION, THE CODE OF ORDINANCE CRITERIA TIED TO OFF SITE PARKING ON SCREEN IS AN AERIAL IMAGE THAT REITERATES THE SAME INFORMATION.

THE LEFT IMAGE HAS THIRD STREET RUNNING UP AND DOWN THE FAR LEFT OF THE PAGE, AND BROAD AVENUES ALONG THE BOTTOM.

THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING IS OFF SCREEN TO THE LOWER LEFT, AND 350FT EAST AND NORTH IS 375 BROAD AVENUE.

BEHIND QUIGLEY AND COMPANY FINE ART GALLERY IS ITS CURRENT PARKING FACILITY, HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN ON THE LEFT IMAGE.

THE RIGHT IMAGE IS HOVERING OVER THIRD STREET, LOOKING EAST TO THAT SAME PARCEL OF LAND WHERE THE ART GALLERY IS TODAY, AND OUR PARKING AND TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, NORM TREBILCOCK, HAS NUMBERED THE EXISTING SPACES THAT ARE ON SITE TODAY.

IN OTHER WORDS, AS HIGHLIGHTED BY MR. CHRISTMAN AT THE 63 MINUTE MARK OF THE FEBRUARY HEARING, QUOTE, THE PETITIONER HAS OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM IF THEY CHOOSE TO MEET THE PARKING THAT IS OTHERWISE REQUIRED FOR OUTDOOR DINING.

CLOSE QUOTE OPTIONS QUOTE THROUGH THE PRIVATE MARKETPLACE TO ACQUIRE SPACES.

CLOSE QUOTE. WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE SECOND TOOL MENTIONED BY MR. HUTCHINSON A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS. DURING THE FEBRUARY HEARING, THERE WAS SOME DEBATE ABOUT TIMING TO PREPARE THE RELEVANT MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF AN APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 5107 OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

WE WENT RIGHT TO WORK IN MARCH. COUNT CAR COUNTS WERE TAKEN AND NORM WILL TALK ABOUT THAT IN JUST A MOMENT.

REGARDLESS OF THE TIMING DEBATE, THIS TEAM WENT TO WORK ON THE UNIQUE SITUATION OF MIXING PARKING FOR AN ART GALLERY AND FOR PARKING OUTDOOR DINING. WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN OVER THE PRESENTATION TO MR. NORM TREBILCOCK TO PRESENT OUR PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS PROCESS, AS WELL AS CONCLUSIONS THAT BEGAN DURING PEAK SEASON IN MARCH OF THIS YEAR AND CULMINATES TODAY. NORM. THANK YOU.

GOOD MORNING. GOOD MORNING. OOPS. OH, BETTER DO IT RIGHT HERE.

[02:10:01]

AND I WANT TO GET YELLED AT. GOOD MORNING. MY NAME IS NORMAN TREBILCOCK.

I'M A CERTIFIED PLANNER PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND PROFESSIONAL TRAFFIC OPERATIONS ENGINEER WITH OVER 35 YEARS OF LOCAL EXPERIENCE.

I'VE PRESENTED TO YOU ALL BEFORE, AND I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU THIS MORNING.

WE PREPARED THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS, AS TIM HAD MENTIONED.

WORKED WITH YOUR STAFF, YOU KNOW, FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE AND PROCESS OF HAVING FIRST AND METHODOLOGY MEETING TO GO OVER THE APPROACH TO MAKE SURE THE APPROACH IS MEETING CODE. AND THEN WE PROVIDED THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS REPORT ITSELF, UPDATED IT BASED ON STAFF INPUT AS WELL.

AND SO YOU ALL HAVE THAT DETAILED PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS STUDY.

THAT'S AS PART OF THE PART OF YOUR AGENDA PACKAGE AND EVERYTHING.

BUT I WAS GOING TO JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THAT PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS AND, AND WHAT IT REALLY TOLD US ABOUT.

SO REALLY FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, WE LOOK AT WHAT ARE THE PARKING NEEDS FOR THE TWO USES, THE PROPOSED OUTDOOR DINING AND THE EXISTING ART GALLERY AND THE REQUIREMENTS AND DEMAND IN THIS CASE, WE USE THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS AND DO AN EMPIRICAL STUDY, WHICH IS REALLY THE PREFERRED METHOD OF OF GOING OUT IN THE FIELD AND LOOKING AT PEAK SEASON, PEAK PERIOD OF TIME TO SEE WHAT THE DEMAND IS, TO SEE IF THAT EXISTING USE THE ART GALLERY HAS AVAILABLE EXTRA PARKING THAT COULD BE RESOURCED FOR THIS PROPOSED USE. THE PROPOSED USE THE OUTDOOR DINING WOULD MEET SPECIFICALLY THE CODE, SINCE IT ISN'T AN EXISTING USE OUT THERE, SO WE WOULD MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT THERE.

AND SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE TALK ABOUT. AND THEN THE KEY PART OF IT TOO IS REMEDIES.

IN THE EVENT THAT THERE IS SOME ISSUE WITH WHAT WE'RE DOING OR TO MAKE SURE THAT WE MAINTAIN THE CRITERIA, YOU HAVE THESE REMEDIES AVAILABLE THAT WOULD GET ENACTED IF THERE ARE ISSUES THAT COME UP.

AND SO THAT WAS STAFF WAS DILIGENT ABOUT THAT DURING THE PROCESS TO WAS IDENTIFIED.

AND THIS ISN'T DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS, BUT AN OVERALL, YOU KNOW, SAFETY APPROACH.

WAS LOOKING AT THIS PARKING AREA HERE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT IS PROPERLY LIT AND MEETING CRITERIA.

SO THAT'S SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT AS WELL. AND THEN WE HAVE ANALYSIS AND CONCLUSIONS.

SO SO FROM A DEMAND STANDPOINT, AS TIM HAD MENTIONED, IT'S IT'S BASED ON FOR BOTH USES, THE OUTDOOR DINING AND THE ART GALLERY BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE USES OF BOTH OF THOSE. AND SO THEN YOUR CRITERIA FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING OF PER CODE IS SEVEN SPACES FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING, AND THE ART GALLERY IS 13 SPACES.

SO THAT TOTALS UP AND JUST CODE SPECIFICALLY, I CAN HANDLE THIS MATH.

IT'S 20 SPACES THAT WE NEED. THE PARKING LOT THAT WE HAVE THERE REALLY HAS 15 AVAILABLE SPACES, SO SO IT'S SHIVES FROM A CODE STANDPOINT. THAT'S WHY WE DO THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS TO SAY, HEY, IS THIS EXISTING USE SOMEHOW? MAYBE NOT DEMANDING AS MUCH PARKING AS WHAT WE REQUIRE BY CODE.

AND THAT'S THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

SO WE DID A OVER A TWO WEEK PERIOD LOOK IN THE PEAK SEASON, LOOKED AT, OBSERVED THE PARKING DEMAND THAT HAD OCCURRED DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME DURING THESE KIND OF PEAK PEAK PERIODS THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT.

AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS SUFFICIENT PARKING AVAILABLE THAT COULD BE USED ELSEWHERE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THE THE OBSERVED DEMAND WHICH I'M SHOWING ON THIS NEXT CHART IS REALLY CAME OUT TO BE SEVEN SPACES FOR THAT USE.

AGAIN, IT'S JUST DUE TO THE UNIQUE OPERATIONS OF THAT USE AND HOW IT'S SITUATED.

AND WHERE THE PARKING IS THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT UNUSED PARKING.

AND SO THE IDEA HERE THEN IS TO LOOK TO USE THAT TOWARDS THIS, THIS PROPOSED USE.

SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE KEY THING. SO IN OTHER WORDS, THE OBSERVED PEAK DEMAND IS SEVEN.

WE NEED SEVEN FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING. SO THAT'S 14.

SO THERE IS SUFFICIENT PARKING AVAILABLE IN THAT PARKING LOT.

AS WELL, IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT REMEDIES, IN THE EVENT THAT THERE'S SOME ISSUE WITH THAT, THE KEY THING IS TO LOOK AT SOME PARKING LOT CONTROLS.

IN OTHER WORDS, TO KEEP FOLKS OUT THAT DON'T BELONG THERE.

SOME MEASURES THAT WE COULD DO SUCH AS GATES MONITORING.

ALSO THE KEY THING THOUGH, REALLY IS IN THE LEASING PRACTICES, IT'S A IT'S ON THE OWNER TO MAKE SURE THAT A, THEY MAINTAIN A TENANT AS SUCH AS THIS ART GALLERY THAT DOESN'T DEMAND AS MANY FOLKS TO, TO PARK THERE AS WELL.

[02:15:02]

AND IN THE, IN THE FUTURE, IF THEY HAVE A NEW TENANT TO LOOK FOR A TENANT THAT IS OF A LESSER DEMAND.

A PERFECT EXAMPLES IS WOULD BE LIKE INTERIOR DESIGN OR FURNITURE STORE OR CARPET STORE.

THOSE BY YOUR CODE IS ONE PER 500 VERSUS THE ONE PER 300.

SO THAT WOULD BE A SUITABLE SUBSTITUTION OR WHAT YOU COULD DO IS HAVE ANOTHER USE COME IN THAT OPERATIONALLY IS A LOWER DEMANDER THAT WE CAN LOOK AT.

AND AND AGAIN, IT'S INCUMBENT ON US TO DO THAT AHEAD OF TIME IF THERE IS A CHANGE IN LEASE.

SO THE LEASING PRACTICES IS AN IMPORTANT REMEDY SOLUTION.

OTHER THINGS YOU CAN LOOK AT IS AGAIN AS REMEDIES AS EMPLOYEE SHUTTLING.

OR AGAIN THE KEY WOULD BE ALTERNATE PROPERTY OPTIONS.

AGAIN THAT'S A KEY THING THAT THAT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PARTICULAR OWNER HAS ADDITIONAL PROPERTIES IN THE AREA SO THAT IN THE EVENT WHATEVER SAY BACK FILLS THIS SPACE MAYBE IS A HIGHER DEMAND. OR THEY COULD LOOK FOR AN ALTERNATIVE ONE.

BUT IN DOING ANY SUCH THING LIKE THAT, IT'S INCUMBENT ON THE OWNER TO BRING IT TO YOU ALL FOR APPROVAL.

AGAIN, IT'S NOT IT'S NOT AN AUTOMATIC OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO THOSE ARE THE THE KEY THINGS THERE, AS I MENTIONED TO THAT, THAT CAME UP REALLY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING WAS GOOD OBSERVATIONS.

WAS THE NEED FOR ENHANCED LIGHTING THERE AND THAT CAN BE READILY TAKEN CARE OF.

WE DID A LIGHTING, I DO LIGHTING AS WELL, SITE LIGHTING.

AND SO WE'D USE A 2700 KELVIN, WHICH IS LOWER THAN YOUR CODE REQUIREMENT.

SO IT'S A SOFTER LIGHTING THAT'S MORE RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE AND LOWER MOUNTING HEIGHT.

AND ALSO THEN THE FOOT CANDLES WOULD NOT ENCROACH UPON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY EITHER, BUT WE'D HAVE SUFFICIENT LIGHTING WITHIN THE PARKING LOT TO, TO MAKE IT A SAFE ENVIRONMENT, WHICH WAS A GOOD POINT THAT YOUR PLANNING BOARD HAD BROUGHT UP, AND STAFF AS WELL. SO BASED ON THAT AND OUR ANALYSIS, AGAIN, THE MINIMUM CODE REQUIREMENTS SEVEN AND 13, THE ACTUAL PEAK DEMAND THAT WE SEE FOR THE ART GALLERY PEAK SEASON PEAK DEMAND IS SEVEN SPACES.

BASED ON THAT, THE PARKING LOT CAN BE ESTABLISHED TO HAVE 15 SPACES SO THERE'S SUFFICIENT SUPPLY AVAILABLE FOR BOTH USES IS REALLY WHAT IS CONCLUDED. AND WE CAN DO PROPER STRIPING REGULAR SPACES, 14 SPACES WITH ALSO YOU CAN DO A COMPACT SPACE TO ALLOW 10% COMPACT. SO WE ALSO PROVIDE REASONABLE REMEDIES IN THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

AND AGAIN WOULD PROPOSE A PARKING LOT LIGHTING TO ENHANCE THINGS AS WELL FOR IMPROVED SAFETY AND ATMOSPHERE AS WELL.

WITH THAT I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO TIM. BACK TO TIM.

OOPS. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YEAH. THANK YOU NORM.

CITY COUNCIL TODAY, NORM AND I HAVE OUTLINED OUR STATEMENTS OF FACT RELATIVE TO THE CITY'S LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE.

SPECIFICALLY, OUR REQUEST FOR OUTDOOR DINING UNDER SECTION 56 126, OUR REQUEST FOR OFF-SITE PARKING UNDER SECTION 5100 2B2.

AND OUR REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS UNDER SECTION 5107.

OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY REQUIRES THE SATISFACTION OF SEVEN KEY BULLET POINTS, PLUS REVIEW AND APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.

WE FEEL THAT TODAY'S TESTIMONY, PLUS THE RELEVANT APPLICATION MATERIALS THAT ACCOMPANY OUR AGENDA ITEM, SATISFIES EACH OF THOSE CRITERIA. OF COURSE, ONE OF THOSE OUTDOOR DINING BULLET POINTS REQUIRES THE SATISFACTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT A RATIO OF THREE PER 1000. MY NEW NORTH STAR POINTED US TO OFF SITE PARKING, IN MY TESTIMONY, ILLUSTRATED HOW WE SATISFIED BOTH THE DIMENSIONAL CRITERIA AND THE ZONING CRITERIA OF THAT ORDINANCE.

AND FINALLY, NORM JUST WALKED US THROUGH THE MIXED USE PARKING DEMAND FOR 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH AND HOW THE OBJECTIVE, REAL LIFE QUANTIFICATION OF DEMAND CAN SUPPORT THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT OF OUTDOOR PARKING.

EXCUSE ME OF PARKING FOR OUTDOOR DINING. IN SUMMARY, WE FEEL THAT TODAY'S CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEMS 11 C AND 11 D, AND THE PRESENTATIONS FROM OUR TEAM COLLECTIVELY RESPOND TO FEBRUARY'S FEEDBACK.

HOWEVER, BEFORE CONCLUDING OUR TEAM'S PRESENTATION AND REMARKS, I WOULD LIKE TO INTRODUCE TO YOU TODAY MR. RICK DOODY OF NCR VENTURES. NEXT COOL RESTAURANT.

RICK WILL SHARE A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HIS BACKGROUND AS THE LEAST OPERATOR, AND AT THIS TIME, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO RICK AND ALLOW HIM TO EXPLAIN MORE OF HIS BACKGROUND IN THIS SPACE.

GOOD MORNING AND WELCOME. YOU'LL STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

SURE. IT'S RICK DOODY, AND I'M THE OWNER OF NCR VENTURES.

THANKS, TIM. YEAH, I'M THE RESTAURANT GUY. I'VE BEEN IN THE BUSINESS ALL MY LIFE.

[02:20:02]

I THE FIRST RESTAURANT I OPENED WAS IN 1981, IN COLUMBUS, OHIO NAMED LINDY'S.

AND LINDY'S IS STILL THERE TODAY. IT'S AN INSTITUTION.

IT'S BEEN AROUND FOR 45 YEARS. IF YOU GO TO COLUMBUS AND ASK SOMEONE ONE OF THE 3 OR 4 BEST RESTAURANTS IN THE CITY I'D BE VERY SURPRISED IF THEY DIDN'T SAY LINDY'S. IT'S WITH THAT INTENT THAT WE HOPE TO OPEN A RESTAURANT HERE IN THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING.

I HAVE ALSO BEEN VERY BLESSED IN THIS BUSINESS.

I LOVE TO SERVE. I LOVE TO TAKE CARE OF GUESTS.

I FOUND IT A BIGGER RESTAURANT COMPANY. BRAVO AND BRIO RESTAURANTS, WHICH YOU HAVE LOCALLY.

AND SOLD THAT 20 YEARS AGO. ONE OF THE THINGS ABOUT HAVING A BIGGER RESTAURANT COMPANY IS YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF ADVANTAGES TO HAVING A SMALLER RESTAURANT COMPANY WHEN YOU LOVE TO SERVE, WHICH I DO. I LOVE TO TAKE CARE OF PEOPLE. AND AND SO OUR NEW RESTAURANT COMPANY, THE ONE THAT WE'VE HAD THE LAST DOZEN YEARS NCR VENTURES ONLY HAS TEN RESTAURANTS AND WE HAVE NO OTHER PLANS.

OTHER THAN THIS, THERE'S NO OTHER RESTAURANTS UNDER DEVELOPMENT.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE FIVE ITALIAN RESTAURANTS NAMED BAR ITALIA.

TWO ARE ACTUALLY IN FLORIDA, ONE IN WINTER PARK AND ONE IN SARASOTA AND LAKEWOOD RANCH.

SO WE'RE VERY FAMILIAR WITH FLORIDA. AND WE LOVE YOUR STATE AND WE LOVE NAPLES.

MY WIFE AND I ARE BOTH RESIDENTS OF NAPLES. MY WIFE IS AN INTERIOR DESIGNER.

SHE ACTUALLY DEALS WITH JOE PANARELLI, THE OWNER OF QUIGLEY, AND BUYS A LOT OF ART FROM JOE FOR HER FOR HER CLIENTS HERE IN NAPLES. SHE HAS AN OFFICE OVER ON TRADE CENTER WAY.

WENDY BARRIE W DESIGN IS THE NAME OF THE COMPANY OUR COMPANY BACK TO WE HAVE TEN RESTAURANTS, FIVE OF WHICH ARE BAR ITALIA. WE HAVE THREE CLASSIC AMERICAN GRILL RESTAURANTS, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND IN BRICKTOPS HERE IN IN NAPLES. AND THEN WE HAVE A FRENCH BISTRO. WE JUST OPENED 2 OR 3 MONTHS AGO CALLED LOLA'S BISTRO.

IT'S DOING VERY WELL. AND THEN THE RESTAURANT THAT WE THINK WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE FOR THIS BUILDING IS OUR FLAGSHIP PREMIER RESTAURANT CALLED JOJO'S BAR. AND JOJO'S BAR IS A PRIME STEAK PRIME ITALIAN HIGH END RESTAURANT, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU MIGHT FIND WITH THE POLO BAR IN NEW YORK CITY.

VERY SORT OF HIGH END. WE JUST HAD TAYLOR SWIFT AND TRAVIS KELCE THERE WITH A BIG CROWD OUTSIDE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO THAT THE OTHER THING THAT I SHOULD MENTION IS WE VERY MUCH WANT TO BE A COMMUNITY BASED RESTAURANT COMPANY.

THREE OF THOSE RESTAURANTS, LOLA'S BISTRO, 17 RIVER GRILL AND JOJO'S BAR, ARE WITHIN 70 YARDS OF EACH OTHER IN A SMALL TOWN IN COLUMBUS AND CLEVELAND OUTSIDE OF CLEVELAND CALLED CHAGRIN FALLS.

IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH IT. IT'S A CHARMING LITTLE TOWN.

IT'S GOT A WATERFALL RUNNING THROUGH IT. AND WE THINK WE'VE MADE A VERY SIGNIFICANT.

WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY COUNTLESS PEOPLE THAT WE'VE MADE A GREAT CONTRIBUTION TO THAT TOWN.

IF YOU ASK ANYONE IN COLUMBUS THE CONTRIBUTION THAT LINDY'S HAS MADE TO GERMAN VILLAGE.

I THINK IT'S THE SAME. AND SO IT'S IN WITHIN WITH THAT INTENT THAT WE'D LIKE TO DO THE SAME THING HERE AT THE OLDE NAPLES BUILDING.

THANK YOU. I'M SURE THERE'LL BE QUESTIONS, BUT WE'LL LET THE PRESENTATION BE COMPLETED.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THAT, IN FACT, DOES CONCLUDE OUR INITIAL REMARKS, BUT WE'RE ALL AVAILABLE.

THOSE OF US WHO HAVE TESTIFIED, AS WELL AS OTHERS WHO ARE HERE, AVAILABLE ON THE TEAM.

SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? SO I DO HAVE A QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS OF OF THE RESTAURANT.

YEAH. CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR SUCCESS. THANK YOU.

SO WHAT WILL THE OPERATIONS OF THE RESTAURANT BE? OH, THE TIME. HOURS OF OPERATION OR. YES. YOU SAID JOJO'S BAR.

JOJO'S BAR WOULD PROBABLY BE LUNCH AND DINNER SEVEN DAYS A WEEK.

OKAY. AND WILL YOU BE SEEKING VALET? WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT.

IT'S STILL IN DISCUSSION. WE THINK THAT IT'S SOMETHING WE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO PROVIDE AS MANY SERVICES TO OUR GUESTS TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS THEY CAN TO DINE. SO THE ANSWER IS WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER THAT IN THE FUTURE, BUT WE HAVE A LOT OF HURDLES TO GET THROUGH FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE AND FROM A CONSTRUCTION PERSPECTIVE.

THAT BUILDING NEEDS A LOT OF LOVE. SO I KIND OF I CAN'T THINK ABOUT THAT JUST YET.

BUT YEAH, DOWN THE ROAD MAYBE. SO DO YOU HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT

[02:25:07]

FOR THE RENOVATION OF THE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF? THERE IS AN EXISTING BUILDING PERMIT. CORRECT? YES. WE DO HAVE AN EXISTING PERMIT, AND THE WORK HAS BEEN SUSPENDED PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE OUTDOOR DINING, WHICH IN TALKING TO TENANTS LIKE RICK, IS A NECESSARY PART OF SECURING ANY LEASE WITH A PROSPECTIVE OPERATOR.

YEAH. IF I COULD SAY JUST ONE THING ABOUT THIS I, YOU KNOW, I HAVE GOOD FRIENDS IN THE RESTAURANT BUSINESS, INCLUDING CAMERON MITCHELL, WHO HAS THREE RESTAURANTS ON FIFTH AVENUE.

STEVE LOMBARDO, OWNER OF GIBSON'S, WHO'S ALSO TRYING TO FIND A RESTAURANT AND CALLS ME EVERY OTHER DAY ABOUT THIS LOCATION.

THE NUMBER THE ECONOMICS OF THIS RESTAURANT DON'T WORK WITHOUT A PATIO.

NOT JUST. I WON'T DO THE DEAL. I MEAN, I DON'T MEAN TO BE.

IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FINANCIALLY FOR US TO ENTER INTO THIS WITHOUT AN OUTDOOR DINING, WE'D BE TRYING TO COMPETE AND FIGHT AGAINST RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE SIGNIFICANT OUTDOOR DINING WITH ONE HAND TIED BEHIND OUR BACK.

IT JUST IS NOT FAIR. AND SO, I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE AT THE RESTAURANTS JUST ON THIRD STREET, FOR INSTANCE, ON THIRD AVENUE, EXCUSE ME, THIRD STREET THERE'S SIGNIFICANT OUTDOOR DINING, WHETHER IT'S CAMPIELLO, CONTINENTAL RIDGEWAY.

EVERY TIME I GO THERE, HE'S GOT MORE TABLES IN THE OUTDOOR DINING.

AND SO FOR ME, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO TO TO LOOK AT THIS.

IT DOESN'T IT DOESN'T MAKE ONE OF THE THINGS WE DO THAT WE HAVE A LOT OF, WE'VE BEEN VERY BLESSED IN THE INDUSTRY IS BECAUSE I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMICS OF RESTAURANTS AS WELL AS THE, THE PASSION OF IT.

SO, SO TO GET BACK TO THE AREA THAT IS DEFINED.

YEAH. HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO CALCULATE THE AREA THAT YOU NEED VERSUS WHAT IS FOR OUTDOOR DINING.

YOU KNOW, 2300FT IS STILL MAKES ALLOWS US TO TO MAKE THE PROJECT WORK.

MADAM MAYOR, I THINK IT I THINK IT'S WOULD WE LIKE THE 4500? SURE. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN WE CAN LIVE WITH 2300.

ANYTHING LESS THAN THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF I. I DON'T THINK I COULD DO.

I MEAN, HONESTLY, I JUST THINK IT'S IT'S IT'S TOO RESTRICTIVE AND, AND AND YOU'RE GOING UP AGAINST SOME OTHER RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE VERY LARGE OUTDOOR DINING. I WENT TO CAMPIELLO ONE TIME AND THEY TRIED TO SIT ME OUT IN ON THE SIDEWALK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE BEVY.

YOU KNOW, I MEAN, LITERALLY ON THE ON THE ON THE STREET.

I DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WAS PART OF THEIR RESTAURANT, BUT IT WAS.

THAT WAS DURING COVID, BY THE WAY. SO THEY WERE SEATING EVERYBODY OUTSIDE.

SO BUT YEAH, I MEAN SO I THINK WE CAN MAKE THE 2300.

I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT IT IS. WE CAN MAKE IT WORK.

AND THAT'S WITH THE TABLES AND CHAIRS REQUESTED.

YES. THAT INCLUDES ALL YOUR BAR SERVICE. AND BECAUSE WE.

AND THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE WE HAVE RESTAURANTS WHO THINK THEY CAN FIT IN THIS SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THEN THEY ENCROACH AND HAVE TO PUT SERVING TABLES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE WALKWAY OR FOR YEAH, RIGHT. THAT'S ALWAYS A CONCERN. YOU KNOW, THE DEMANDS OF THIS RESTAURANT IS GOING TO BE VERY HIGH END.

IT'S NOT GOING TO WE'RE NOT GOING TO WANT TO DO THAT. I MEAN, WHEN WE LOOK AT SEATS PER SQUARE FOOTAGE WE WOULD BE ONE OF THE HIGHER WE WOULD WANT MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE. SEATS PER PER SEAT.

IN OTHER WORDS, I CAN'T REMEMBER. I WENT TO CORNELL HOTEL SCHOOL, AND I, THEY TAUGHT ME ALL THIS, BUT I THINK IT WAS LIKE A MORE CASUAL RESTAURANT IS ABOUT 15 OR 17FT² PER SEAT, AND A LARGER MORE FINE DINING RESTAURANT IS SOMEWHERE IN THE 20S, IF I REMEMBER.

AND DON'T HOLD ME TO THESE NUMBERS, BECAUSE YOU'LL DO YOUR MATH ON THIS AND SAY HE'S GOING TO PUT TOO MANY SEATS IN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS. BUT THE POINT BEING, WE'RE GOING TO BE AT THE HIGHEST END. YOU CAN.

WE WE TRY TO MAKE OUR OUR RESTAURANTS VERY COMFORTABLE.

WE ALWAYS BELIEVE IN VERY COMFORTABLE OUTDOOR SEATING WITH ARMS AND AND JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S AN IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT WE DO.

WE WE WE BELIEVE IN 10,000 DETAILS MAKES US WHO WE ARE.

AND WE LITERALLY SWEAT EVERY SINGLE DETAIL, INCLUDING THE COMFORT OF THE CHAIR, GREATLY.

THANK YOU. SURE. MR.. COULD I ASK? YOUR YOUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS REALLY FOR DAYTIME USE. AND I KNOW THAT THE ART GALLERY HAS EVENTS AND IS OPEN IN THE EVENINGS,

[02:30:01]

SO I DON'T SEE THE ACCOUNT FOR EVENING OTHER TIMES ON YOUR ANALYSIS.

SO THOSE ARE SPECIAL EVENTS OBVIOUSLY, BUT THE THE NORMAL HOURS WERE WITHIN THEIR NORMAL HOURS OF OPERATION IS WHAT WE WERE BRACKETING.

AND WE WENT BEYOND THAT TO 7 P.M.. IT WAS JUST SPECIAL EVENTS.

RIGHT. WHAT ARE THEIR NORMAL HOURS? YES. LET ME SEE HERE.

IS IT? I BELIEVE IT'S FIVE. THE PROPERTY MANAGER, MR. VUKOBRATOVIC, JUST MENTIONED THAT THEY CLOSED THEIR DOORS AT 5 P.M.

AS THE ART GALLERY. I'M SORRY, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT. THE ART GALLERY CLOSES ITS DOORS AT 5 P.M..

OKAY. SO WE WENT BEYOND THAT WITH THIS STUDY.

I ALWAYS TRY AND BRACKET AROUND, YOU KNOW, STUFF.

WELL, YOU DID DURING THE DAY, BUT NOT IN THE EVENING.

SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT BUILDING WILL NOT BE HAVE NEED FOR THAT SPACE IN THE EVENINGS? YES, MA'AM. CORRECT. CORRECT. AND YOU ACTUALLY WENT OUT THERE AND COUNTED BECAUSE I COULDN'T COUNT THE SAME AMOUNT OF SPACES THAT YOU CAME UP WITH.

OKAY. YES. SO. SO THERE WERE 15 SPACES. I THINK THERE'S ONE OF THEM THAT'S A BIT NARROW, QUITE FRANKLY.

AND THEY DE FACTO USE IT, BUT THERE'S SUFFICIENT ROOM TO KIND OF RESTRIPE.

THAT'S WHY I MENTIONED IN MY CONCLUSIONS, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT NEED TO DO IS TO MAKE SURE THEY PROPERLY RESTRIPE EVERYTHING TO HAVE THE 15 SPACES.

OKAY. SO AND THEN IN YOUR PRESENTATION, IT OR IT SHOWED 350FT, BUT IT SHOWED TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHERE THAT'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PARKING THE BACK OF YOUR BUILDING WOULD BE DIFFERENT.

CORRECT. WHAT? THAT WAS REALLY A DIMENSION CORNER TO CORNER OF THE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE PARCELS OF LAND. BUT IT WOULD BE CLEARLY LESS THAN 600FT AWAY.

BUT JUST WE JUST KIND OF LOOKED AT IT RADIALLY FROM CORNER TO CORNER OF THE PARCELS AND 350FT.

AND YOU CAN SEE BY, BASED ON THE DIMENSIONS OF THE ART GALLERY PROPERTY, IT'S NOT ANOTHER COUPLE HUNDRED FEET OR ANYTHING. IT'S, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE WITHIN THE CRITERIA.

I'M NOT GOOD WITH. YES. UNDERSTANDING THAT MEASUREMENT, WHETHER IT WOULD OR WOULDN'T, IT'S IT JUST SAID 350.

YES, MA'AM. TO THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. WERE YOU INCLUDING THOSE PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

OH. GOOD QUESTION. NO, MA'AM. IT'S JUST THE THE THE PARKING THAT THAT THAT THEY HAVE CONTROL OVER, NOT THE PUBLIC PARKING. THE PUBLIC PARKING IS EXCLUDED IN IN THE ANALYSIS.

SO DURING THE DAY AND THE EVENING, HOW WILL THE CARS BE PARKED BACK THERE? WILL THEY GO THROUGH THE ALLEY? HOW HOW WILL PEOPLE KNOW THAT THERE'S PARKING? CORRECT. SO THEY WOULD USE THE PUBLIC ALLEY TO BE ABLE TO PARK.

AND THEN THE SIGN, THERE WOULD BE SIGNAGE THAT WOULD BE SPECIFIC RESTRICTIVE SIGNAGE.

I HAVE SOME PICTURES OF KIND OF AN EXAMPLE OF THAT CONCEPT HERE.

OOPS. THERE WE GO. SO CURRENTLY THERE'S IN THE UPPER LEFT.

YOU CAN SEE THERE'S A SPECIFIC PARKING DESIGNATING FOR THAT USE.

AND SO WHAT WE WOULD DO IS HAVE SOMETHING THAT WOULD GEORGE WOULD, WOULD CHANGE THE SIGNAGE TO MAKE IT ALLOW FOR THE RESTAURANT AS WELL.

AND THEN SO ONE OF THE IDEAS TO IS IN TERMS OF LIKE FOLKS DOING RESERVATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT FOR THE RESTAURANT.

A LOT OF THE APPS WILL THEN HAVE YOU KNOW, DIRECTIONS ON TO, YOU KNOW, GET TO PARKING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AND THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE IDEA AS WELL. SO WHERE IS THE EMPLOYEE PARKING? SO THE SO THE PARKING FOR EMPLOYEES OR OR GUESTS COULD USE THIS.

WE DON'T. AND YOU KNOW THE CODE DOESN'T DISTINGUISH THAT IT'S A IT'S A COLLECTIVE.

YOU NEED SEVEN PARKING SPACES. SO YOU KNOW IN SOME CASES SOME FOLKS DO DO RESTRICTIVE, SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNER DOES ONE THAT'S EXCLUSIVELY FOR EMPLOYEES, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, KIND OF NEARBY WHERE WE'RE AT HERE.

THIS WOULD BE POTENTIALLY OPEN TO THE NO PUN INTENDED, THE WHOLE ENCHILADA, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, BUT EMPLOYEES OR GUESTS OF THE RESTAURANT? HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE YOU EXPECTED TO EMPLOY? I'M. I'M NOT. CONTINUES TO BE IN FLUX. WE NEED TO GET THROUGH TODAY'S USING THE CRITERIA ESPOUSED BY THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CODE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT A LEASE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE GOT A CONSTRUCTION PLAN THAT MAKES SURE THAT WE CAN START TO

[02:35:07]

FORECAST THE STAFFING. RIGHT. BUT OBVIOUSLY THERE MUST BE SOME BUSINESS PLAN IN THAT.

YOU WOULD KNOW HOW MANY EMPLOYEES, BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T PAY ATTENTION TO WHERE WE'RE GOING TO PARK OUR EMPLOYEES.

SO. CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ORDINANCES DO NOT SEPARATE BETWEEN PATRONS AND EMPLOYEES.

SO WE'RE UTILIZING A BLENDED RATE THAT IS ESPOUSED BY THE ONE FOR 301 PER 100, ONE PER 500, DEPENDING ON THE CERTAIN USES ALL OVER YOUR CITY.

NONE OF YOUR PARKING DIFFERENTIATES BETWEEN EMPLOYEES VERSUS PATRONS.

OKAY. AND THEN JUST CAN YOU CONFIRM WITH ME THE ATTACHMENT THAT YOU'RE USING FOR THE AS BUILT PROPERTY BECAUSE I IT YOU CAN'T GET ONTO THE PROPERTY TO BE ABLE TO EVEN MEASURE IT.

SO DO YOU HAVE AN AS BUILT OR IS IT JUST THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN 22? I THINK IT WAS 22. WHICH PROPERTY. BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO, WE HAVE QUICKLY AND WE HAVE OUTDOOR DINING ITSELF ON OLDE NAPLES BUILDING.

YES. THERE'S A SURVEY THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION.

OKAY. MAYBE YOU CAN JUST SOMEBODY CAN BE PREPARED TO SHOW ME WHERE THAT IS IN THE IN THE PACKET.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS IN YOUR PACKET. I DON'T HAVE THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS IN THE PACKET.

OKAY. ONE MORE QUESTION. I'M SORRY. SO IT SHOWS THAT THERE ARE THERE'S AN OWNER A DIFFERENT NAME ON THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING, LLC, WHICH IS OWNED BY.

IT HAS A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OWNERS WHO OWN DIFFERENT PERCENTAGE SHARES.

OKAY. AND THEN IT'S ONE FAMILY, BUT IT'S IT USES THE.

IS IT THE SAME OWNERSHIP OF THE TRIPLE A BUILDING? AND THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS IF WE ARE LIMITING THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING, THE ART BUILDING TO LIMITED PARKING, THEN THEY COULD NOT IN MY OPINION, THEY COULD NO LONGER ALLOW ANY KIND OF USE RESTAURANT OR ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE MORE PARKING. ONE OF THE ASPECTS OF YOUR CODE OF ORDINANCES SAYS THAT IF WE ENTER INTO THIS AGREEMENT TODAY THAT SAYS THAT WE'RE GOING TO PARK THESE SEVEN OUTDOOR SPACES OVER HERE AT THE ART GALLERY IS THERE NEEDS TO BE A PIECE OF LEGAL PAPERWORK PUT IN PLACE, AND THAT'S PART OF YOUR ORDINANCE. AND THAT WILL BE MEMORIALIZED BETWEEN THOSE TWO OWNERS OF THE TWO PROPERTIES SO THAT THEY KNOW THEY'RE ENCUMBERED IN ON A GO FORWARD BASIS.

OKAY. SO WE WOULD BE IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED.

IT'S BASED ON GETTING THAT DOCUMENT. YEP. THAT WE DON'T HAVE BEFORE US.

SO IT'S ONE OF THE CONDITIONS. YOU DON'T HAVE IT BEFORE YOU TODAY, BUT IT'S ONE OF THE CONDITIONS YOU'LL SEE IN YOUR RESOLUTION IS REQUIREMENT OF THE PARKING AGREEMENT WILL BE RECORDED. AND THEN THAT RECORD THAT WILL BE RECORDED FOR BOTH PROPERTIES.

AND BASICALLY IF SOMEONE WERE TO IF THEY WERE TO EVER PUT THE 375 BROAD PROPERTY UP FOR SALE AND DID A TITLE SEARCH THAT WOULD COME UP AND, YOU KNOW, NOTIFY THAT THIS PROPERTY IS ENCUMBERED.

IF IT WAS FOR SALE OR IN A LEASING SITUATION, THAT THAT PROPERTY IS ENCUMBERED WITH THOSE SPACES.

SO YOU'RE CORRECT. THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CHANGE THE USE OF THAT BUILDING TO A USE THAT HAS A HIGHER PARKING RATIO THAN WHAT IS THERE NOW.

AND THE OWNERSHIP IS THE SAME. I THINK CURRENTLY THE OWNERSHIP IS THE SAME.

IF YOU GO BACK THROUGH THE LLCS IT DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE OWNERSHIP BE THE SAME.

BUT IT DOES BECAUSE YOU ARE RECORDING THAT AGREEMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

I THOUGHT THAT IT HAD TO BE BY OWNERSHIP OF THE PETITIONERS.

THAT IT BE ADJACENT TO THEIR PROPERTY. IT COULDN'T BE JUST SOMETHING RANDOM.

IT REQUIRES IT TO BE WITHIN 600FT OF THE PROPERTY.

BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE SAME OWNERS. THE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE.

IT'S LIKE THERE'S THERE ARE SOME COMMERCIAL OPERATIONS IN TOWN THAT HAVE DONE DEALS WITH CHURCHES BECAUSE THEY'RE ONLY USING THEIR PARKING LOTS ON SUNDAYS.

SO FOR THE OTHER SIX DAYS A WEEK, THERE'S A HECK OF A LOT OF PARKING AVAILABLE. AND PEOPLE HAVE ENTERED INTO THESE TYPES OF PARKING AGREEMENTS. AND IN THAT INSTANCE, AGREEMENT NOT. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING, IS THAT AFTER TODAY, THERE WILL BE A PARKING AGREEMENT PUT IN PLACE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. AND SHOULD THAT THAT 375 EVER GET SOLD AT A POINT IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD COME UP ON A TITLE SEARCH TO SAY THAT SALE IS ENCUMBERED.

AND YOU THEREFORE KNOW WHO YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO LEASE THAT SPACE TO.

OKAY, I'M CLEAR ABOUT THAT. IT'S JUST THE OWNERSHIP PIECE.

AND YOU SAID THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE CODE.

CAN YOU GIVE ME THAT? THERE'S NOT A PROVISION IN THE CODE.

[02:40:02]

THE CODE DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TWO PARCELS BE THE SAME AT THIS POINT IN TIME.

YEAH, THAT'S JUST FOR WHAT? CODE? WHAT? CAN YOU JUST TELL ME THE CODE.

SO THIS IS GOING TO BE IN CHAPTER 50. IT'S THE OFF SITE PARKING SECTION.

WELL SHE'S PULLING THAT UP IF IT'S IF IT MAKES EVERYTHING EASIER.

BOTH PROPERTIES TODAY ARE THE SAME BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP WHATEVER MIGHT HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.

DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. BUT FOR PURPOSES OF TODAY, SAME BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP.

I'LL ASK MY ATTORNEY HOW THAT AFFECTS US THEN IN THE FUTURE.

BUT BE PREPARED, MR. MCCONNELL, FOR THAT. AND YOU READY FOR THAT ANSWER? YEAH, I THINK I CAN I CAN ANSWER IT NOW. I THINK MISS MARTIN CLARIFIED THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.

I'VE BEEN SITTING AT THESE MEETINGS WITH OTHER REQUESTS LIKE THIS THAT HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT OWNERS.

I THINK RIGHT NOW THEY'RE UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. BUT I THINK THE MOST PROTECTION THAT THE CITY GETS IS THE REQUIREMENT TO RECORD THIS DOCUMENT AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

IF IT MAKES COUNCIL FEEL EVEN BETTER, WE CAN ADD A CONDITION IN THE CIP THAT SAYS SHOULD THE USE OF THE ART STORE CHANGE, IT WILL NOT COME BACK TO COUNCIL. BUT YOU KNOW WE WILL BE NOTIFIED OF SUCH USE TO ENSURE THAT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.

I DON'T SEE WHY THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD OBJECT TO THAT, BUT I DO THINK THERE'S A LOT OF PROTECTION IN RECORDING THIS DOCUMENT, JUST LIKE YOU WOULD RECORD A DEED OR ANYTHING ELSE AGAINST THE PROPERTY.

THAT BY FAR IS THE BEST PROTECTION IN THIS SCENARIO THAT THE CITY CAN OBTAIN.

SO WHAT CONCERNS ME IS THAT YOU YOU HAVEN'T COME AT LEAST WITH THE OTHER BUILDING'S OWNERS TO WITH A DOCUMENT SAYING THAT THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO.

THEY'RE THE SAME OWNERS. I'M HERE TODAY. I'VE BEEN HIRED BY THE FAMILY THAT OWNS BOTH PROPERTIES.

OH, THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO IT'S THE SAME OWNERS? YES, MA'AM. JUST A DIFFERENT LLC. THAT'S CORRECT.

YEP. THANK YOU. COUNCIL, OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS.

AGENT KRISEMAN AND THEN VICE MAYOR. YES. I HAVE QUESTIONS, BUT I'M WONDERING WHETHER IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE THE STAFF REPORT FIRST.

OKAY, JUST I'M ASKING FIRST FOR THE I HAVE I HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE PETITIONERS AGENT, BUT AFTER THE STAFF.

BUT I THINK THEY COULD BE WE MAY HAVE MORE CONTACT IF WE LISTEN TO THE STAFF REPORT FIRST.

THANK YOU. IS THAT THE SAME FOR YOU? COUNCIL MEMBER, PENMAN AND VICE MAYOR.

OKAY, PERFECT. WE'LL GO TO THE STAFF REPORT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.

GOOD MORNING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR. YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TODAY TWO COMPANION ITEMS 11 C IS A REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL. THIS IS PURSUANT TO SECTION 4634 OF THE CODE, WHICH IS THE CONDITIONAL USE SECTION.

AND IT'S APPROVING OFF-SITE PARKING WITHIN 300 OR WITHIN 600FT PURSUANT TO SECTION 51 02B2 OF THE CODE AND APPROVING A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS PURSUANT TO SECTION 5107 OF THE CODE. AND THIS IS FOR THE PROPERTY, THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING AND PROPERTIES, LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH, WHICH IS THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING, AND THEN THE OFF SITE PARKING LOCATED AT 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH.

YOU ALSO HAVE BEFORE YOU A REQUEST FOR OUTDOOR DINING.

AND THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING TO ADD OUTDOOR DINING TO THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING.

THE REQUEST IS TO ADD 2315FT² OF OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE PROVISION OF 15 TABLES AND 76 CHAIRS PURSUANT TO SECTION 50 6-1 26 OF THE CODE, THREE PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED FOR EVERY 1000FT² OF OUTDOOR DINING.

AS THERE ARE NO PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE OUTDOOR DINING, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THE OFF SITE PARKING.

SO THE THE DEMAND GENERATED BY THE ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR DINING IS SEVEN SPACES.

AND SO THE REQUEST IS TO ALLOW THEM TO USE SEVEN SPACES ON THE OFF SITE LOT, WHICH IS THE 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH LOT TO ACCOMMODATE THAT PARKING.

THERE'S A LENGTHY HISTORY TO THIS ISSUE IN THIS PROPERTY.

I WON'T GO THROUGH THAT TODAY. I WOULD ENTER THE STAFF REPORT INTO THE RECORD.

THERE'S ABOUT THREE PAGES WORTH OF HISTORY ON HOW WE GOT HERE TODAY. BUT IT'S ALL IN YOUR AGENDA.

MEMORANDUM. SO I WOULD SUBMIT THAT FOR, FOR THE RECORD IN ORDER TO APPROVE THE OUTDOOR DINING, YOU WOULD HAVE TO VOTE ON 11 C, WHICH IS THE CONDITIONAL USE FIRST, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THE PARKING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT OUTDOOR DINING.

AND THEN YOU COULD APPROVE THE OUTDOOR DINING.

THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO BE BEFORE YOU AT A PREVIOUS MEETING.

THE PETITIONER, WE DID CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO TODAY'S MEETING.

THE CONCERN PRIOR WAS THAT THERE WAS NOT A RESTAURATEUR IDENTIFIED WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE.

[02:45:06]

AS WE'VE HEARD TODAY IN THE PRESENTATION, THEY HAVE IDENTIFIED A RESTAURATEUR. SO WE HAVE PROVIDED DETAILS, ONE OF STAFF'S CONCERNS AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT WAS THAT WHILE A RESTAURATEUR WAS IDENTIFIED BY LLC AS THE PETITIONER.

WE HAD NOT PREVIOUSLY RECEIVED ANY DETAILS OF EITHER THE RESTAURATEUR OR THE RESTAURANT THAT WOULD BE OPERATED HERE.

WE HAVE RECEIVED THOSE DETAILS TODAY, SO WE'LL BE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE RECORD WHICH SHOULD HELP IMPROVE A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT YOU SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT. WE DID NOTICE THIS TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

WE DID RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE. THAT'S ALL INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ONE EMAIL THAT WAS RECEIVED PRIOR AFTER THE PUBLICATION FROM NEAPOLITAN. BUT IT DID GO TO ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS, AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THE CLERK HAS THAT FOR INCORPORATION INTO THE RECORD.

THIS PROJECT DID GO THE CONDITIONAL USE ELEMENT OF THIS WENT TO THE PLANNING OR PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

THEY DON'T REVIEW OUTDOOR DINING, THEY ONLY REVIEW THE CONDITIONAL USE. SO THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD DID HEAR THIS ITEM ON SEPTEMBER 10TH.

THEY VOTED 4 TO 3 TO RECOMMEND DENIAL OF THE REQUEST, FINDING THAT A LACK OF SUFFICIENT PARKING WAS PROVIDED.

HOWEVER, IN THEIR DELIBERATION, THEY THEY OFFERED THE FOLLOWING FOR COUNCIL'S CONSIDERATION OF THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST, AND THAT WAS THE ADDITION OF A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT YOU WILL SEE IN YOUR IN YOUR RESOLUTION.

THERE ARE SPECIFIC CONCERNS RELATED TO SAFETY OF THE PARKING AREA.

SO THE PARKING AREA IS EXTREMELY DARK AND COULD BE UNSAFE.

THEY REQUESTED THAT ADEQUATE BUT MINIMUM LIGHTING BE ADDED TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THE PATRONS.

NEXT WAS THAT ADEQUATE SIGNAGE SHOULD BE ADDED TO NOTIFY A PATRON OF THE RESTAURANT THAT PARKING IS AVAILABLE OFF SITE.

AND THE THIRD IS THAT THE PETITIONER WILL ENSURE THAT ALL 15 PARKING SPACES ON THE OFF SITE LOT ARE UNOBSTRUCTED AND AVAILABLE FOR PARKING.

I THINK A COUPLE OF THEM HAD VISITED THE SITE AND SAW THAT THERE MAY BE SOME WORK VEHICLES THAT WERE PARKED THERE OR SOME, YOU KNOW, SOME OBSTRUCTIONS IN THOSE PARKING SPACES. SO THAT WAS THEIR REQUEST. STAFF DID FIND IN REVIEWING THE CONDITIONAL USE REQUEST AGAINST THE CRITERIA IN YOUR CODE. WE DID FIND THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA WITH THE RECOMMENDATION OF EIGHT CONDITIONS.

THE FIRST IS THAT SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE AND THESE CONDITIONS WILL TIE THE CONDITIONAL USE TO THE OUTDOOR DINING.

SO SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 25 OD 18, ALLOWING THE OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH. THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CODE OF ORDINANCES SECTION 5102 B2, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY, MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE OUTDOOR DINING.

THAT'S THE PARKING AGREEMENT THAT WE WERE SPEAKING TO A MINUTE AGO.

THAT'S HOW YOU COMMEMORATE AND THEN, YOU KNOW, ENCUMBER THAT OFF-SITE LOT WITH THE PARKING.

THAT ALSO IS THAT IS NOT AN AGREEMENT THAT THE PETITIONER COULD CHANGE ON THEIR OWN WITHOUT NOTIFICATION TO THE CITY.

SO THAT'S A WAY FOR THE CITY TO KNOW THAT IF THIS PROPERTY DOES CHANGE HANDS IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL BE NOTIFIED OF THAT AND THEY CANNOT ALTER THAT PARKING AGREEMENT.

THE SECOND IS THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR THE OFF SITE PARKING AREA SHALL BE 11 A.M.

TO 11 P.M. SUNDAY THROUGH MONDAY, AND 11 A.M.

TO 12 A.M. ON FRIDAY AND SATURDAY. WE HADN'T PREVIOUSLY BEEN PROVIDED WITH THE HOURS OF OPERATION, SO THE PA WAS QUESTIONING BECAUSE THIS IS AN OFF SITE LOT ADJACENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

WHAT ARE THE HOURS? CURRENTLY, THOSE PARKING SPACES SERVE A GALLERY THAT CLOSES AT 5 P.M., SO THEY WANTED TO BE SPECIFIC ON WHAT THE NEW HOURS WOULD BE FOR THE USE OF THOSE PARKING SPACES.

THE THIRD IS IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PETITIONER TO ENSURE THAT THE OFF SITE PARKING DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND TO ENSURE THAT THE CONDUCT RELATED TO THE OFF SITE PARKING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT PATRONS COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S NOISE STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 22 DASH 37. SO BECAUSE THESE WILL BE THE PATRONS OF THE OLDE NAPLES BUILDING, IT WILL BE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE RESPONSIBLE USE OF THAT PARKING AREA. FOR THE PARKING AREA IS EXTREMELY DARK AND COULD BE UNSAFE.

THE PETITIONER WILL ADD LIGHTING THAT IS ADEQUATE, BUT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO ENSURE SAFETY OF THE PATRONS. I THINK MR. TREBILCOCK SHOWED SOME IMAGES OF SOME OF THE LIGHTING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, WHICH SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE MINIMUM NECESSARY TO ENSURE IT'S SAFE.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE ON HERE, WHILE THEY DID SHOW THE DIAGRAM SHOWING THE THE RELATIONSHIP, THE DISTANCE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THESE TWO PARCELS, THE ACTUAL ACCESS TO THIS PARKING AREA IS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT.

YOU WILL HAVE TO GO DOWN THIRD AND THEN TURN UP THE ALLEY TO ACCESS THAT PARKING AREA.

SO IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT IT'S NOT A STRAIGHT KIND OF SHOT ACROSS THE STREET LIKE THAT.

THE PARKING IS IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING. SO IT'S A DIFFERENT ROUTE TO GET THERE THAN DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

AND THEN THE PETITIONER WILL ADD SIGNAGE THAT IS ADEQUATE TO NOTIFY A PATRON OF THE RESTAURANT THAT PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE OFF SITE LOT. I THINK NORM HAD SHOWN SOME

[02:50:07]

PHYSICAL SIGNAGE THAT THEY WILL PUT ON IN THAT OFF SITE LOT.

AND THEN ALSO THEY SPOKE TO HAVING THE ABILITY WHEN SOMEONE YOU KNOW ACCESSES THE WEBSITE FOR THIS RESTAURANT OR TRIES TO BOOK A RESERVATION, THEY WILL NOTIFY AT THAT TIME THAT THERE IS OFF SITE PARKING.

THE SIXTH IS THAT THE PETITION WILL ENSURE THAT ALL 15 PARKING SPACES IN THE OFF SITE LOT ARE UNOBSTRUCTED AND AVAILABLE FOR PARKING AT ALL TIMES.

NUMBER SEVEN IS, IN THE EVENT OF ANY BUILDING PERMIT, DEMOLITION PERMIT, OR ANY FUTURE RENOVATION OR CONSTRUCTION TO THE BUILDING THAT REQUIRES DEMOLITION OR REMOVAL OF ANY EXISTING SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CONTRIBUTES TO THE CALCULATION OF 76 PARKING CREDITS.

AS STATED IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT DATED JUNE 26TH, 2018, THE OWNER SHALL FORFEIT THE PARKING CREDITS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEMOLISHED SPACE, WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE PARKING CREDIT ASSOCIATED WITH THE NON DEMOLISHED AREA REMAINING INTACT.

FOR PURPOSES OF CALCULATING THE FORFEITURE OF PARKING CREDITS, THE SQUARE FOOTAGES AND SPECIFIC DESIGNATED USES AS SHOWN ON SHEET A 0.03 OF THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED AUGUST 17TH, 2022. PERMIT NUMBER 04953 SHALL BE THE OPERATIVE CREDITS FORFEITED.

FURTHER, THE FOLLOWING CALCULATION SHALL BE UTILIZED FOR ANY REMOVED SQUARE FOOTAGE A ONE FOR ONE FORFEITED SPACE FOR EVERY 100FT² OF DEMOLISHED AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED ON SHEET A 0.03 AS RESTAURANT SPACE, INCLUDING RESTAURANT STORAGE, AND B ONE FORFEITED SPACE FOR EVERY 300FT² OF DEMOLISHED AREA THAT IS DESIGNATED ON SHEET A 0.03 AS RETAIL SPACE, INCLUDING RETAIL STORAGE.

THAT IS A VERY TECHNICAL CONDITION THAT IS RELATED TO THE ORIGINAL JUDGMENT FOR THE THE THE CREDIT OF THE 76 SPACES TO THE PETITIONER. THAT WAS ALL CALCULATED BASED ON EXISTING USES AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING.

AND THIS IS A VERY TECHNICAL WAY OF SAYING IF YOU DEMOLISH ANY OF THAT SPACE, YOU DON'T GET TO YOU DON'T RETAIN THE BENEFIT OF THOSE PARKING SPACES.

AND THEN JUST TYING IT TO THE, THE, THE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED.

AND THEN NUMBER EIGHT IS SHOULD ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BE VIOLATED, CITY COUNCIL MAY REVIEW, MODIFY, OR REVOKE THIS APPROVAL. SO THOSE ARE THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE.

THE OUTDOOR DINING. DO WE WANT TO DO YOU WANT ME TO PAUSE HERE AND ANSWER QUESTIONS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE CONDITIONAL USE, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO KEEP GOING? WILL YOU NEED STAFF REPORT ON BOTH TO ASK THE QUESTIONS ON THE PARKING? I THINK I THINK IT MIGHT BE BETTER TO TO TO FOCUS ON QUESTIONS AROUND THIS SET OF ISSUES AND THEN COME BACK TO THE OUTDOOR DINING.

SURE. I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.

OKAY. I, I NEED WHY DON'T WE GO AHEAD. KEEP GOING.

OKAY. SO THOSE WERE THOSE CONDITIONS WERE PROPOSED FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE.

WITH RESPECT TO THE OUTDOOR DINING YOU HAVE A SET OF OUTDOOR DINING CRITERIA WHICH ARE FOUND IN SECTION 50 6-1 26 D2 OF YOUR LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, AND THEN YOU ALSO HAVE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT CRITERIA WHEN YOU ESTABLISH A USE A COMMERCIAL USE WITHIN 300FT OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SO STAFF FOUND WHEN WE REVIEWED THIS REQUEST AGAINST THOSE CRITERIA.

SO THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY YOUR FIRE MARSHAL, WHICH IS ACTUALLY THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF ACTING AS FIRE MARSHAL RIGHT NOW.

AND HE DID FIND THAT THE PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ALL APPLICABLE LIFE SAFETY CODES.

THE APPLICATION, THE NEW APPLICATION THAT WAS FILED DID IDENTIFY A RESTAURATEUR WHICH ADDRESSED THE MAJORITY OF THE OF STAFF'S CONCERNS WITH THE FIRST SUBMITTAL.

THEY DID IDENTIFY ALSO THE HOURS OF OPERATION.

HOWEVER, NO FURTHER INFORMATION RELATED TO OR DETAILS OF THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT.

I THINK TODAY WE HAVE A BETTER IDEA. IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A HIGHER END.

I THINK WE MENTIONED HIGH END STEAK OR ITALIAN RESTAURANT.

AND A LUNCH OR LUNCH AND DINNER. SO THEY DIDN'T MENTION BREAKFAST OR BRUNCH, BUT WE'LL I'M SURE WE WILL OBTAIN MORE DETAILS OF THAT AS WE GO THROUGH.

AGAIN, WE CANNOT APPROVE THE OUTDOOR DINING IF WE DON'T APPROVE THE CONDITIONAL USE FOR THE PARKING FIRST.

SO THAT IS A PREREQUISITE BEFORE WE CAN CONSIDER THE OUTDOOR DINING.

AND THEN IF THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD CITY COUNCIL VOTE TO APPROVE THE OUTDOOR DINING REQUESTS, STAFF RECOMMEND INCLUSION OF SEVEN CONDITIONS ON THIS ONE.

THE FIRST IS THAT THE OUTDOOR DINING AREA IS LIMITED TO 2315FT², WITH A MAXIMUM OF 15 TABLES AND 76 CHAIRS, AS CONFIGURED ON THE APPROVED LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

ANY FUTURE EXPANSION, MODIFICATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THIS OUTDOOR DINING AND LIFE SAFETY PLAN WILL REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW AND APPROVAL.

THE NEXT IS THAT APPROVAL OF THIS OUTDOOR DINING REQUEST IS DEPENDENT UPON APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2025.

IT'S BLANK, BUT WE WILL INSERT THE RESOLUTION FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE.

APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 20 25. Q6.

[02:55:01]

PURSUANT TO YOUR CODE. AND THREE SHOULD CITY COUNCIL APPROVE.

OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 2518 ALLOWING OUTDOOR DINING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR THE RESTAURANT LOCATED AT 1148 THIRD STREET SOUTH.

THE WRITTEN AGREEMENT REQUIRED BY THE CODE OF ORDINANCES FOR THE OFF SITE PARKING MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE CLERK OF COURT PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE OUTDOOR DINING.

NUMBER FOUR, AN APPROVAL OF THIS OUTDOOR DINING REQUEST IS NOT A VESTED RIGHT AND WILL NOT BE TRANSFERABLE TO ANY FUTURE RESTAURATEURS.

AS YOU'RE AWARE, YOUR CODE IN CHAPTER 56, YOUR OUTDOOR DINING CODE REQUIRES THAT A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, CHANGE OF BUSINESS, CHANGE OF LIFE, SAFETY REQUIRES REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A NEW OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT.

SO THIS IS A LITTLE BELT AND SUSPENDERS. BUT JUST TO DRIVE HOME THAT POINT, I'M GOING TO SKIP READING NUMBER FIVE.

IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE VERY LENGTHY CONDITION THAT I READ IN THE CONDITIONAL USE, ONE RELATED TO THE FORFEITURE OF PARKING CREDITS RELATED TO DEMOLITION, BUT IT IS EXACTLY THE SAME WORDING. NUMBER SIX IS AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THIS OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT IS DEPENDENT UPON APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2025, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION, AS WELL AS THE BUILDING REMAINING IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN THE 76 PARKING SPACES WERE VESTED PURSUANT TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT DATED JUNE 26TH, 2018. AND SHOULD ANY OF THESE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL BE VIOLATED, CITY COUNCIL MAY REVIEW, MODIFY, OR REVOKE THIS APPROVAL. THIS WAS ALSO ADVERTISED AND NOTICE TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 1000FT.

WE DID RECEIVE CORRESPONDENCE THAT IS ALL INCLUDED IN IN YOUR AGENDA PACKET, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ONE LATER RESPONSE WHICH THE CLERK HAS RECEIVED, AND WE WILL MAKE SURE IS INCLUDED FROM NEAPOLITAN.

OKAY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO START COUNCIL MEMBER KRISTEN? SURE. THANK YOU. FIRST A QUESTION, A COUPLE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

THE LONG TECHNICAL CONDITION? YES, I'LL CALL IT THAT.

IN PLAIN ENGLISH. DOES THAT MEAN THAT IF THERE IS CHANGES TO THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING THAT BASED ON THIS FORMULA THE SO-CALLED PARKING CREDITS WOULD BE REDUCED AND, AND THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION WOULD BE THAT THE OWNER OPERATOR WOULD NEED TO PROVIDE IN AN ACCEPTABLE WAY, PARKING OFF-SITE.

EQUIVALENT TO THE REDUCTION IN THE PARKING CREDITS.

THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PARKING OFF SITE PER SE.

THEY WOULD LOSE THE CREDIT. THEY WOULD LOSE THAT CREDIT.

SO THEY ARE AFFORDED A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WHAT IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF THAT TO THE OWNER.

THE CONSEQUENT OF THAT OF THAT IS, THEY FORFEIT THAT SPACE.

SO THEY HAVE A MEZZANINE AREA IN THIS BUILDING.

THEY HAVE THE DINING AREA ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THEY HAVE A MEZZANINE, I'M NOT GOING TO SAY A SECOND FLOOR, BUT IT'S A MEZZANINE AREA THAT PROVIDES WHAT THEY IDENTIFY AS STORAGE. NOW, SOME OF THAT STORAGE IS ASSIGNED TO THE RETAIL SPACE, AND SOME OF IT IS ASSIGNED TO THE RESTAURANT SPACE.

SO THE PARKING RATIO ASSIGNED TO THAT STORAGE SPACE IS CORRELATES TO THE USE.

AND THEY WOULD FORGO THAT. THAT WOULD BE GONE FOREVER.

ONCE THE WAY YOUR NONCONFORMITY READS IS IF IF A NONCONFORMITY IS DEMOLISHED, EVEN FOR A SECOND, IT CANNOT BE REPLACED. YOU CAN REPAIR AND MAINTAIN, BUT YOU CANNOT REPLACE.

WHAT IS THE IMPACT ON THEIR OPERATIONS RELATIVE TO PARKING.

THEY WOULD LOSE THAT STORAGE SPACE AND NOT BE ABLE TO RECOVER IT.

SO THAT SPACE COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR ANY PURPOSE.

IT WOULD BE GONE AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO REPLACE IT. YEAH.

OR IF I COULD FIND. OR THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIND MORE PARKING OR FIND MORE.

CORRECT? CORRECT. THAT'S WHAT IF THEY WANTED TO RETAIN.

CORRECT? YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. AND THE FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, THE REDUCTION. WHAT WE HEARD ABOUT THE PRIOR PROPOSAL TALKED ABOUT ROUGHLY DOUBLE THE AMOUNT OF OUTDOOR DINING SPACE, SQUARE FOOTAGE.

SO WE'RE TALKING 4600FT² OR SOMETHING, AS I RECALL, WITH THE WITH THE SAME NUMBERS OF TABLES AND CHAIRS THAT ARE NOW BEING PROPOSED FOR ROUGHLY 2300FT². YES. AND MR. DUTY, IN FACT, SAID, YOU KNOW, THAT'S YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO GO ANY LOWER THAN THAT.

I FIND IT SOMEWHAT COUNTERINTUITIVE THAT THE SAME NUMBER OF TABLES AND CHAIRS CAN BE PLACED IN SOMETHING HALF THE SIZE APPROPRIATELY.

[03:00:03]

BUT TELL ME FROM A STAFF STANDPOINT, HAS THAT HAS THAT BEEN REVIEWED? AND, AND APPROVED? IT HAS BEEN AND IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE DEPUTY FIRE CHIEF.

IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE LIFE SAFETY CODE. SO IT'S BEEN IT'S BEEN APPROVED FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT.

IT'S ACCEPTABLE FROM A SAFETY STANDPOINT. AND THE REASON I SAY THAT IS BECAUSE THE LIFE SAFETY CODE IS WHAT DICTATES THE SPACING, YOU KNOW, THE DISTANCES BETWEEN TABLES AND CHAIRS AND MAINTAINING THAT EGRESS.

WE'RE NOT MAKING AN ESTHETIC JUDGMENT. THAT'S NOT AN ESTHETIC JUDGMENT.

YOU ARE CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. LET ME CAN I CAN I ASK MR. DUTY A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS? AM I PRONOUNCING YOUR NAME CORRECTLY? YES. DUTY. YEAH. YEAH. AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU REMEMBER MR. DUTY. WE MET ABOUT 4 OR 5 YEARS, I REMEMBER. I THINK IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME ON SITE.

I WAS INVITED. MR. MCCARTHY WAS THERE. I THINK, MR. PASSIDOMO. RIGHT. AND WE AT THAT TIME, YOU WERE LOOKING AT THIS AND I ASSUMED IN IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING AT OPERATING A RESTAURANT THERE.

YES. AND THEN THAT WENT AWAY. CORRECT. AND IN THAT TIME PERIOD, I BUILT SIX RESTAURANTS.

SO JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, I'VE. I WAS THIS LITTLE THREE UNIT RESTAURANT COMPANY WHEN I MET WITH YOU, AND WE'VE ADDED A FEW RESTAURANTS, AND NOT THAT I WANT TO DO ANY MORE.

WE'RE DONE. I HAVE SOME PERSONAL THINGS I'M GOING TO GET THROUGH WITH MY WIFE'S HEALTH, AND SO I.

BUT THIS ONE IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IF WE CAN GET IT DONE.

OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. AND AND OBVIOUSLY FROM YOUR DESCRIPTION OF YOUR, YOUR BACKGROUND, YOU YOU'VE BEEN A VERY SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANTEUR AND HAVE OPENED A LOT OF RESTAURANTS AND OPERATED A LOT OF RESTAURANTS VERY SUCCESSFULLY.

HAVE YOU EVER OPERATED A RESTAURANT WITH ZERO ON SITE PARKING? YEAH, LINDY'S FIRST RESTAURANT. WITHOUT A DOUBT.

WE WE OPENED IN 1981 WITHOUT ANY ON SITE PARKING IN GERMAN VILLAGE.

AND IT STILL IS. YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE VALET NOW.

WE DIDN'T ALWAYS FOR THE FIRST, I THINK 10 OR 15 YEARS, WE DID NOT HAVE VALET THERE.

AND IT'S JUST PEOPLE FIGURE IT OUT IN TERMS OF PARKING AND KIND OF HOW TO NAVIGATE.

AND THAT RESTAURANT IS IS OVER $10 MILLION IN BUSINESS A YEAR.

SO IT'S A BUSY RESTAURANT. BUT SO WE HAVE I CAN THINK OF OTHERS.

LET ME CONTINUE, IF YOU DON'T MIND. CHAGRIN FALLS WHERE WE HAVE THREE RESTAURANTS WITHIN 75 YARDS.

WE HAVE NO ON SITE PARKING AS WELL. WE DO RENT ONE SMALL PARKING LOT THAT WE VALET TO ADJACENT TO ONE OF THOSE RESTAURANTS. BUT IT'S NOT NEARLY ENOUGH FOR THE THREE RESTAURANTS THAT WE HAVE THERE.

WE HAVE THREE RESTAURANTS IN, IN VERY LITTLE ON SITE PARKING AT ALL.

THERE'S STREET PARKING AND THERE'S METERED PARKING.

BUT. YEAH. SO DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA HOW HOW MANY HOW MANY CUSTOMERS? YOU YOU WILL BE ACCOMMODATING INSIDE THE RESTAURANT AT ONE TIME.

YEAH. WHAT WOULD YOU KNOW? WE'RE TRYING TO WORK ON A FLOOR PLAN NOW.

MR.. YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO GET A FLOOR PLAN DONE, BECAUSE THE ECONOMICS OF THIS RESTAURANT AND THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO GET ENOUGH SEATS INSIDE IN THE AIR CONDITIONING AS WELL, BECAUSE IT GETS VERY HOT, YOU KNOW, AND I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR AN OUTDOOR DINING IS ALWAYS.

I'M JUST TRYING TO GET A BALLPARK. I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT 120.

I DON'T THINK IT'S I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE MORE PLUS THE BAR.

SO AS A AS A RESTAURANT INSIDE I'M SORRY. YEAH.

INSIDE. SO AS A RESTAURANTEUR IS YOUR RULE OF THUMB THAT IT'S A ONE CAR PER TWO PEOPLE? IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'D HAVE IF YOU WERE FULL OUT, YOU'D HAVE, OF COURSE, YOU HAVE MULTIPLE SEATINGS AND SO ON.

BUT IS THAT FOR JUST ONE? SEATING IS 60 CARS.

IT VARIES GREATLY. AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.

MY SISTER LIVES ON 14TH STREET. SHE'LL WALK THERE EVERY TIME.

MY FRIENDS, THE BABCOCKS LIVE ON 13TH STREET.

SHE'LL WALK. THEY'LL WALK THERE. THEY BOTH THE BABCOCKS ALSO LIVE IN CHAGRIN FALLS.

50 YARDS AWAY FROM MY THREE RESTAURANTS. AND SO THEY'VE BEEN ASKING ME IF THIS IS EVER GOING TO HAPPEN ALMOST DAILY.

THE THE REALITY IS IN TODAY'S IT'S BETTER TODAY THAN EVER BECAUSE OF UBER, BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW,

[03:05:03]

IN NAPLES, YOU GOT GOLF CARTS, YOU GOT A LOT OF THINGS GOING, A LOT OF PEOPLE WALKING.

IT'S VERY PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY. I WOULD, I WOULD THINK IT'S IT'S A MUCH HIGHER PERSON PER CAR RATIO IN NAPLES, HONESTLY, THAN, THAN MOST CITIES. I THINK IT'S 3 OR 4 IN SEASON, BECAUSE WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING IN SEASON, THE FAMILY'S PILING INTO A CAR TO GO TO DINNER, YOU KNOW? AND SO BUT I APPRECIATE THAT. I, I REALLY WASN'T I WAS REALLY TRYING TO GET, GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF YOUR VIEW AND PHILOSOPHY AROUND THIS AND I AGREE WITH YOU. SOME PEOPLE WILL WALK, SOME WILL TAKE UBER AND LYFT AND IT'LL BE A MIXED BAG.

BUT FOR THOSE WHO DO DRIVE THEY'RE GOING TO. YOUR VIEW IS THAT I THINK THERE'S SOMETHING LIKE 250 ON STREET PUBLIC PARKING SPACES IN THE THIRD STREET AREA. BASICALLY, PEOPLE WILL BE ON THEIR OWN TO FIGURE OUT WHERE THEY CAN FIND A PARKING SPACE.

YEAH, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE GENERALLY TRUE.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S I HAVE NOT COUNTED THAT.

IS THAT THE NUMBER 250? I THINK THAT'S A NUMBER I'VE HEARD.

YEAH. I WOULD THINK IT'S HIGHER BECAUSE 250 WOULDN'T SUPPORT THE VOLUME OF THE RESTAURANTS THAT YOU.

WELL, MOST OF THE PARKING THERE IS IN THAT AREA, OF COURSE, IS PRIVATE.

YES. AND THERE'S MANY, MANY MORE PARKING SPACES, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS MOST OF THEM ARE PRIVATE, WHETHER OWNED BY NEAPOLITAN OR OTHER PRIVATE PARTIES.

RIGHT? SO, BUT BUT AT THIS POINT, YOUR VIEW IS THAT THE PARKING WOULD BE SORT OF THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO FIGURE OUT WHERE TO PARK.

THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN CHAGRIN FALLS, YOU KNOW? AND I'M SURE YOU CAN FIND THE LOAN RESIDENT OF CHAGRIN FALLS THAT SAY WE RUIN THE TOWN IN SOME RESPECT.

BUT THE REALITY IS I GET 98 OUT OF 100 THAT SAY WE'VE HAD A GREAT ENHANCEMENT TO THE CITY.

AND MY I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE REDUCTION IN OUTDOOR DINING SQUARE FOOTAGE, BUT THE RETENTION OF THE SAME NUMBER OF TABLES AND CHAIRS AND THE LOCATION OF THE PARKING TO SATISFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS NOW, BECAUSE OF THAT, BEEN REDUCED FROM 15 OR 17 TO SEVEN. RIGHT, RIGHT.

WHAT WAS THE WHAT WAS THE ORIGINAL NUMBER? ERICA.

17. WHEN WAS 4600FT². THEY'RE REQUESTING THE SAME NUMBER OF SEATS, BUT IN THE PRIOR ITERATION, IT WAS. IT WAS DOUBLE. 2300, APPROXIMATELY WAS 4600, WHICH WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THE ORIGINAL FOOTAGE INCLUDE LANDSCAPING AREAS WAS SPREAD OUT. TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, 4630FT AT THREE PER THOUSAND WOULD BE 14 SPACES, AND IT WAS 14 SPACES. OKAY, HALF THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, HALF AND HALF THAT.

SO WE'VE GONE FROM 14 TO 7. AND AGAIN, YOU KNOW, I WORRY ABOUT THAT.

AND I WORRY ABOUT WHETHER IN ORDER TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO FIND THE SEVEN, YOU'VE YOU'VE KIND OF YOU'RE WORKING BACKWARDS FROM THAT GOAL. AND BUT THAT'S I JUST I'M NOT EVEN ASKING FOR A RESPONSE ON THAT.

I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT'S A CONCERN THAT I HAVE.

AND I ALSO HAVE A CONCERN AS TO HOW PEOPLE ARE GOING TO FIND THEIR WAY TO THIS OFF SITE PARKING.

IT'S NOT VERY FAR AS THE CROW FLIES, BUT I KNOW THAT AREA VERY WELL, AS MOST OF US DO.

AND PEOPLE BEING AWARE OF WHERE IT IS AND HOW TO GET THERE IS SOMETHING THAT AGAIN, INTUITIVELY GIVES ME, GIVES ME PAUSE. SO THAT'S JUST A COMMENT.

THE BACK TO BACK TO STAFF. ERICA, WHAT IS IT? AND THIS MAY BE A MISS FOR YOU, MR. MCCONNELL.

IF WE APPROVE THIS CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL COULD IT BE CONTINGENT ALSO ON THE THE OPERATOR OF THE RESTAURANT NOT CHANGING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF MR. DUDDY WERE NOT TO CONTINUE TO BE INTERESTED, ABLE, WILLING TO OPERATE THIS RESTAURANT.

AND AND THE OWNER MOVED TO A DIFFERENT. PROPRIETOR BECAUSE I THINK ALL THESE DECISIONS ARE SO TIED TO WHO'S THE RESTAURANT OWNER AND OPERATOR ARE GOING TO BE THAT THAT THE PETITIONER WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IN AGAIN FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE APPROVAL WOULD, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD NO LONGER BE IN EFFECT AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK IN WITH A REAPPLICATION.

[03:10:02]

LEGALLY, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN TIE IT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE, I THINK ON ITS FACE AND HOW THE CODE READS.

THE CURRENT APPLICANT FOR THE RESTAURANT OPERATOR IS TIED TO THE OUTDOOR DINING PETITION SUCH THAT IF THEY CHANGE, THE OUTDOOR DINING ASPECT HAS TO COME BACK TO YOU.

BUT BECAUSE THE CONDITIONAL USE DEALS WITH DIFFERENT CRITERIA AND IT'S REALLY RELATED TO JUST ARE YOU WITHIN 600FT, ETC. THEN YOU CAN'T TIE IT TO THE RESTAURANT OPERATOR IN MY OPINION.

UNDER WHAT SECTION OF THE. OH. I'M SORRY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND THAT WAS A QUESTION I HAD. APPRECIATE THE ANSWER.

AND I GUESS MY FINAL QUESTION. MAYOR. AND THEN YOU CAN ASK YOUR QUESTIONS.

OTHERS CAN. WHAT IS THE TIMELINE HERE, MR. DOODY? WELL, I HAVE NO IDEA, I'LL BE HONEST. I MEAN, I WOULD LOVE TO OPEN IN SEASON NEXT YEAR.

I DON'T THINK I WOULD EVER MAKE IT. I REALLY DON'T KNOW.

THE BUILDING IS NEEDED A LOT OF WORK. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A GREAT CONSTRUCTION TEAM AND PEOPLE THAT CAN KIND OF RALLY AND GET GOING, BUT I DON'T KNOW. HONESTLY, UNTIL I GET STARTED, I CAN GIVE YOU A BETTER INDICATION.

AND AGAIN, IT'S A MARATHON, NOT A SPRINT. SO I DON'T REALLY CARE IN THE SENSE OF THAT.

WE SPENT 18 MONTHS BUILDING THIS LITTLE FRENCH BISTRO IN CHAGRIN FALLS THAT I THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS EVER GOING TO OPEN. BUT THE REALITY IS, 2 OR 3 MONTHS AGO IT OPENED AND IT'S BOOMING.

IT'S PACKED ALL THE TIME. SO IT WORKS, YOU KNOW? BUT YEAH, THANK GOODNESS. BUT I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW.

I WISH I COULD SAY GENERALLY IT TAKES 12 MONTHS.

YEAH. START TO FINISH TO KIND OF GET OPEN. BUT THIS BUILDING IS A LITTLE MORE THAN THAT WE GOT.

YEAH. SO YEAH THERE'S A LOT OF UNKNOWNS HERE.

YES, THAT'S FOR SURE. I'LL PAUSE AND LET OTHERS ASK QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. HAVE COUNCIL MEMBER PENMAN. WHAT DO WE NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THE INDOOR DINING.

WHAT DO WE KNOW OF THE INDOOR DINING? YEAH. WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE INDOOR DINING? I NOTHING AS IT IS RELATED TO THIS REQUEST. THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A LIFE SAFETY PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE MARSHAL FOR THE INDOOR DINING AS WELL.

AND INDOOR DINING HAS A DIFFERENT PARKING. CORRECT.

YEAH, THAT'S ONE PER 100 FOR THE INDOOR SPACE.

FOR THE ONE, ONE FOR 100. BUT THAT'S GROSS. SO THAT'S NOT JUST THE AREA OF TABLES AND CHAIRS.

THAT'S ONE PER 100 FOR KITCHEN, BATHROOMS, STORAGE, ALL ALL RESTAURANT RELATED SPACE.

BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WE'D HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA WHAT THE WHAT THE PARKING NEEDS ARE GOING TO BE FOR THE INDOOR SPACE.

WELL, WE KNOW THAT THEY ARE LIMITED TO THE 76 PARKING SPACES AFFORDED TO THEM IN THE IN THE FINAL JUDGMENT, BUT THAT'S FOR BOTH THE GROUND FLOOR AND MEZZANINE AREA.

AND THAT'S SPLIT BETWEEN THE RESTAURANT ALLOCATED SPACE AND THE RETAIL ALLOCATED SPACE.

SO I CAN SHOW YOU, BASED ON THE BUILDING PERMIT, HOW THOSE SPACES ARE ALLOCATED.

BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE THE LAYOUT OF THE TABLES AND CHAIRS THAT I CAN PROVIDE TO YOU.

OKAY. I SORT OF FEEL LIKE I'M GROPING THROUGH THE DARK HERE A LITTLE BIT.

YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS MY POINT IS I CAN SHOW YOU THE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOCATED TO THE DINING INDOOR DINING AREA.

BUT AS I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, HAS THE FIRE MARSHAL APPROVED THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN FOR THE INDOOR? WE HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT. WE HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT THAT SAYS YES, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT A LIFE SAFETY DRAWING.

BUT I THINK WHAT'S CONFUSING AT THE MOMENT IS THAT YOUR ORDINANCES RELATIVE TO PARKING HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH SEAT COUNT.

AND PART OF THAT IS IN RECOGNITION OF WHAT MR. DOUGHTY JUST TALKED ABOUT IN TERMS OF UBER, LYFT, WALKING CULTURE, ETC.

THE WAY THAT THIS BUILDING IS PARKED IS ONE PARKING SPACE FOR EVERY 100FT² OF GROSS INDOOR SPACE.

FULL STOP. WE COULD PUT ONE CHAIR IN THERE. WE COULD PUT 100 CHAIRS IN THERE.

IT'LL BE A FACTOR OF ECONOMICS. BUT YOUR ORDINANCES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF TODAY'S HEARINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INDOOR SEAT COUNT.

WE COULD PUT ONE PERSON IN THE KITCHEN. WE COULD PUT EIGHT PEOPLE IN THE KITCHEN.

SO LONG AS IT ALIGNS WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT UNDER THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

[03:15:01]

SO THEY COULD IF THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE APPROVED TABLES AND CHAIRS RIGHT NOW FOR THE INDOOR.

BUT THEY COULD CHANGE THAT IN THE FUTURE. AND AS LONG AS IT IS CONSISTENT WITH LIFE SAFETY REGULATIONS AND IS WITHIN THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. OUR BUILDING PERMITS ARE CODES FOR THE CITY DIFFERENT THAN THE STATE BUILDING CODES? NO. SO YOU HAVE THE THE WELL, YOU HAVE A COUPLE DIFFERENT CODES APPLICABLE HERE.

SO YOU HAVE THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE AND THEN FIRE HAS THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE.

AND THEN WE HAVE ZONING REGULATIONS AND THEY ALL WORK TOGETHER.

I'LL ASK CHIEF WHETHER WE'RE USING THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE OR OUR CITY BUILDING CODE, BECAUSE WE CAN HAVE A STRICTER BUILDING CODE.

WE JUST HAVE TO ADOPT THE STATE. CORRECT. WELL, THERE.

SO HE'S NOT IMPLEMENTING THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE. HE CAN SPEAK FOR HIMSELF, BUT THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE, FIRE PREVENTION, IF I COULD, MAYOR, TO THAT POINT, BECAUSE IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.

I THINK HE CAN SPEAK ON THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE.

WHAT WE HAVE DONE IS ADOPTED THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE, WITH SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS THAT YOU ALL HAVE APPROVED VIA ORDINANCES FOR FLOOD PLAIN AND FEMA REGULATIONS, ETC.. AND YOU CAN BE STRICTER THAN THE BUILDING CODE.

HOWEVER, THE ONLY THINGS APPLICABLE ARE THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE'VE APPROVED.

IT'S NOT LIKE YOU'VE GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE BUILDING CODE AND ADOPTED THINGS, SO BY DEFAULT YOU'RE USING THE WHOLE BUILDING CODE.

BUT FOR THE VERY SPECIFIC SECTIONS THAT YOU'VE MODIFIED AND AMENDED.

AND FLORIDA STATUTE REQUIRES LOCAL GOVERNMENTS AT A MINIMUM AT A BASE LEVEL, TO APPLY THE FIRE PREVENTION CODE AND THE FLORIDA BUILDING CODE.

SO MY QUESTION IS, IS OUR FIRE PREVENTION CODE STRICTER THAN THE STATE? THE STATE BUILDING CODE, IS THAT WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

SO IS THE BUILDING CODE VERSUS THE LIFE SAFETY CODE THERE THEY WORK KIND OF HAND IN HAND.

I CAN'T I CAN'T ATTEST THAT THE FIRE CODE IS MORE STRICT THAN THE BUILDING CODE BECAUSE THEY LOOK AT DIFFERENT THINGS TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.

THEN THERE'S AREAS WHERE THEY OVERLAP. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? OH YEAH. OKAY. JUST MAKING SURE, BECAUSE THAT'S THAT'S THE.

OKAY. I'M SORRY. COUNCILWOMAN. I DO HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU, BUT I SOMEHOW GOT IN THE MIDDLE OF THAT COUNCIL MEMBER PERFECTLY ALL RIGHT. THE MORE QUESTIONS, THE BETTER.

NO, I THINK I'M DONE, BUT I. I DON'T THINK I'M REASSURED IN ANY WAY AT ALL.

THANK YOU. OKAY. DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING, MR. MCCONNELL? YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK I KNOW, IF I MAY, FOR A MINUTE, I THINK I KNOW WHAT COUNCILWOMAN IS TRYING TO GET AT.

SO WHEN IT COMES TO THE INDOOR DINING, LET ME JUST PUT IT LIKE THIS REAL QUICK.

BUT FOR THEM ASKING FOR SHARED PARKING AND OUTDOOR DINING, THIS PROCESS WOULD BE WHOLLY ADMINISTRATIVE.

SO THE INDOOR PORTION OF THIS, THE BUILDING PERMIT PORTION OF THIS, ALL OF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDLED OUTSIDE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING THROUGH THE PERMITTING PROCESS. SO THE REASON IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS BECAUSE OF THESE TWO REQUESTS IN WHICH OUR CODE REQUIRE.

NUMBER ONE, THE CONDITIONAL USE. NUMBER TWO, THE OUTDOOR DINING, WHICH IS WHY THE RECORD IS ONLY LIMITED TO THOSE TWO THINGS.

SO TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT INDOOR, I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF GIVE YOU THAT CONTEXT IN HOPES THAT IT MAY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BUT IT VERY WELL COULD NOT. SO AT LEAST I TRIED.

I APPRECIATE I APPRECIATE THIS SLIDE IN THE PRESENTATION BEING ON THE SCREEN, BUT THAT'S JUST A DINING PLAN. ARE WE REFERRING TO A 0.02 WHEN WE ARE APPROVING THE DINING OUTDOOR DINING PLAN ACCORDING TO THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN? SO THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN IN YOUR PACKET IS YES, A 0.02.

OKAY. SO IF WE COULD PULL THAT UP ON THE SCREEN, THAT'D BE EASIER.

THAT DOESN'T SHOW ME DIMENSIONS OR ANYTHING. OR OTHER COUNCIL MEMBERS.

OKAY. THAT IS DIFFERENT THAN THE ONE I HAVE IN OUTDOOR DINING.

IS THAT FROM THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS? THAT'S IN THE THAT'S IN YOUR CONDITIONAL USE PACKET.

MY A 0.02. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT. IT DOES IN MY PACKET. SO IN THE IT'S LABELED LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

OLD NAPLES BUILDING OUTDOOR DINING IN 11 D. I JUST HAVE LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

[03:20:10]

IT HAS. IT'S JUST MISSING THAT BOTTOM PART. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE IT MIGHT BE MISSING, I JUST CAN'T.

OH, THE TABLE AND CHAIR IMAGE. YEAH. THAT'S NOT THAT'S NOT IN THIS ONE.

BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS THE SAME OKAY. SO WHAT ONE ARE WE USING I MEAN IT'S IT'S THE SAME PLAN.

IT HAS THE SAME DATE THAT JUST HAS THE TABLE AND CHAIR IMPOSED ON ON IT.

WELL WE CAN'T HAVE 2A0 .02. I JUST NEED TO KNOW WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.

CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THE DATE ON THAT I CAN TRY.

I DON'T KNOW IF DAVID'S. I CAN'T READ THE DATE ON THIS EITHER OR DIMENSIONS.

QUITE FRANKLY. YOU MIGHT. SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE TO GO OVER THEM.

ARE. ARE YOU DOING THAT? I JUST NEED TO. I'M SORRY. I JUST HAVE TO ARTICULATE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE ASKING RIGHT NOW FOR OUTDOOR DINING.

WE HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THEIR NEEDS IN TERMS OF PARKING ARE GOING TO BE RELATIVE TO THE INDOOR DINING, AND THEY'RE HAVING TO USURP SPACES FROM ANOTHER LOT JUST TO HANDLE THE OUTDOOR DINING.

SO THAT GIVEN THAT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO GET SPACES FROM FOR THE INDOOR DINING, IF THEY'RE HAVING TO USURP SPACES FROM AN ART GALLERY IN ORDER TO SATISFY THE OUTDOOR DINING.

SO I'M, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT THIS IS EVEN ANSWERABLE.

IT'S JUST AN ODD WAY TO. AND NOTHING AGAINST STAPH.

BUT THIS IS. YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I'VE NEVER BEEN THERE. DONE THIS ONE WHERE THE OUTDOOR DINING PRECEDES THE INDOOR DINING.

BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS IS GOING TO BE FOR THE INDOOR DINING PERIOD.

SO IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. AGAIN, IT ISN'T MEANT TO BE CRITICAL.

IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A RODEO I'VE NEVER BEEN TO BEFORE.

IT'S A FAIR QUESTION. AND BECAUSE OF THE LONG HISTORY, IT'S A LOT TO DIGEST IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME.

AND I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND IT. BUT ONE THING THAT WE CAN TELL YOU IS THAT WHATEVER THEY DO IN THE INSIDE IS LIMITED TO 76 PARKING CREDITS, PERIOD. AND THEY HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT, AS YOU HEARD TESTIMONY TODAY, FOR THE INSIDE THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE 76 PARKING CREDITS THAT WERE HIGHLY LITIGATED FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND FINALLY DECIDED IN 2018 BY JUDGE BRODY.

SO. WE DO HAVE THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. THANK YOU.

CHIEF. CAN YOU JUST SHOW ON THIS THE DATE ON THE PRESENTATION LIFE SAFETY PLAN IS ACTUALLY EARLIER.

THE ONE THAT WE HAVE YOU HAVE IN YOUR PACKET IS A REVISION TWO.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE OTHER SAYS. REVISION ONE.

YEAH. AND THE THE ONE THAT WAS SUBMITTED SAYS REVISION TWO.

THE DIMENSIONS REMAIN CONSISTENT. YEAH. THE ONLY THING THAT CHANGED IS WHAT WE USED ON SCREEN HAS A TABLE AND A CHAIR SO THAT PEOPLE CAN FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK PRETTY COOL. AND THE TABLES ARE GOING TO LINE UP WITH RICK'S DESCRIPTION OF THE VISION FOR THE EXPERIENCE HERE, BUT DIMENSIONALLY, WHERE DAVID ZOOMED IN HERE AND ILLUSTRATED IN BLUE THE MOVEMENT PATHS NECESSARY FOR STRETCHERS NECESSARY FOR STAFF TO ACCESS THE DIMENSIONS BETWEEN THAT STAFF ACCESS WAY, AS WELL AS THEN THE BACK OF THE CHAIRS ARE ALL CONSISTENT BETWEEN EITHER VERSION OF THEM. SO WHATEVER THE RESOLUTION NEEDS TO REFLECT, WE'RE UP FOR IT.

THIS HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR REVISED, BUT FOR THE THE GRAPHIC ASSOCIATED WITH THE FURNITURE.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S I THINK THAT'S WHAT MAYBE, BUT I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS IS THERE A SURVEY THAT WE ARE ABLE TO DO OUR LIFE SAFETY PLAN ON? THAT'S ACTUAL I'M NOT TRACKING THE QUESTION.

IF I'M HONEST. I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. IS THERE A AS BUILT SURVEY THAT SHOWS.

THE PLAN FOR OUTDOOR DINING BEING PRESENTED THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY A LIFE SAFETY PLAN.

WHAT'S ON SCREEN, MA'AM, IS THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY STAFF AND BY FIRE.

OKAY, I'LL JUST ASK CHIEF THEN. THANK YOU. SO THIS WAS DONE BY A SURVEY AS BUILT SURVEY.

[03:25:07]

OR HOW DID WE GET THESE MEASUREMENTS AND APPROVE THE PLAN? WELL, IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE FIRE MARSHAL, CHIEF ADAMSKI.

SO IF IT WAS ON HERE, IT'S APPEARS TO BE THE STANDARD WAY THAT HE PRESENT THESE LIFE SAFETY PLANS.

SO IT WAS. YEAH, IT WAS PREPARED BY THE DESIGN PROFESSIONAL SO THAT WE WON'T HAVE AN AS BUILT SURVEY UNTIL IT'S BUILT.

THE DESIGN PROFESSIONALS WILL PREPARE IT PREPARE THE PLAN, AND THEN IT'LL BE REVIEWED BY FIRE.

BUT TO COUNCIL MEMBER PENNIMAN'S QUESTION. AND I KNOW I HAVE VOTED AGAINST OUTDOOR DINING BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE AN ACTUAL SURVEY AND ACTUALLY BE ABLE TO GO ON SITE AND LOOK AT, WELL, HOPEFULLY WE WON'T EVER HAVE A SITUATION WHERE YOU CAN GO ON SITE AND SEE THE OUTDOOR DINING BEFORE YOU APPROVE IT. THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION. I THINK THIS IS WHAT THEY DO IS THEY'LL THEY'LL SHOW YOU ON IN, YOU KNOW, PLAN DRAWING WITH ALL THE APPROPRIATE DIMENSIONS, HOW IT'S GOING TO BE LAID OUT AND, AND SHOW THAT IT MEETS ALL THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE, YOU KNOW, OCCUPANCY LOADS AND EVERYTHING ON THIS.

AND THEN ONCE IT'S APPROVED, THEY SHOULD INSTALL ALL THOSE TABLES AND CHAIRS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. CHIEF. VICE MAYOR.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. JUST A FEW QUESTIONS HERE.

I'M LOOKING AT THE SLIDE, THE PARKING EXHIBIT SITE PLAN.

THERE'S TWO PAGES. COULD WE MAYBE GO LOOK AT THAT? SO IT'S A SINGLE ATTACHMENT. IT'S A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT, AND IT'S CALLED PARKING EXHIBIT SITE PLAN.

AND THEN THE SECOND PAGE OF THAT WHERE WE HAVE THE NUMBERED PARKING SPACES.

ARE YOU IN? I'M IN THE ATTACHMENTS. I KNOW, BUT FOR ITEM 11 C, ARE WE DEALING WITH ALL OF IT TOGETHER OR ARE WE DEALING WITH SEPARATE? WELL, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS MIGHT BE SUBMITTED.

YEAH. I MEAN, IF THE DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED.

YEAH, IT'S THE SAME. YEAH. HERE'S WHAT I GOT.

I'VE GOT THE PACKET AND I GOT 375 BROAD PARKING EXHIBIT SITE PLAN ON DOWN NEXT PAGE.

THERE YOU GO. TOP OF THE PAGE. THERE WE GO. OKAY.

THEN THE NEXT SLIDE. THE NUMBERED. THERE WE GO.

OKAY, JUST A COUPLE QUICK QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE.

FOR THE CITY THESE NUMBERED PARKING SPACES. WE HAVE CRITERIA FOR PARKING SPACES FOR EACH ONE OF THESE NUMBERED SPACES MEET THAT CRITERIA.

SO THEREFORE IT'S A PARKING SPACE. YES. NORM DID SAY THAT THEY HAVE GONE OUT AND THEY WERE COMMITTED TO, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS TO THAT PARKING AREA TO MAKE SURE THE STRIPING IS CLEAR.

THE SPACES ARE ARE CLEARLY DELINEATED. YEAH. BUT MY QUESTION IS VERY SPECIFIC.

YES, THEY DO PROVIDE THE NUMBER. THE 15 SPACES ARE THERE 15 PARKING SPACES.

YES. OKAY. IN LOOKING AT THE PICTURES IN PARKING SPACE EIGHT AND NINE, I BELIEVE I SAW A WASTE DUMPSTER AND A RECYCLE DUMPSTER. ARE THOSE PARKING SPACES? THEY ARE. AND THAT'S WHY YOU'LL SEE THE CONDITION IN YOUR RESOLUTION. THAT ALL SPACES WILL BE UNOBSTRUCTED.

BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE TO REMOVE ANYTHING THAT IS CURRENTLY OBSTRUCTING A PARKING SPACE. WELL, I RUN A BUSINESS, TOO, AND I HAVE TO HAVE A DUMPSTER AND A RECYCLE DUMPSTER.

SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? THEY WILL HAVE TO RELOCATE THOSE TO AN AREA THAT IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PARKING.

WHAT'S THE PLAN? JUST UP THERE NEXT TO SPACE SEVEN.

THAT'S WHY SEVEN STOPS AND THERE'S STILL A DIMENSION TO THE BUILDING. SO WHERE IS THE DUMPSTER GOING TO BE? IF YOU LOOK ON SCREEN ONE, TWO THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, THEN THERE'S A BIG GIANT GAP.

YOU'VE GOT AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE BUILDING. SO RIGHT WHERE THE CURSOR IS, RIGHT WHERE DAVID'S CURSOR IS, IS IS A SPOT.

OKAY. BECAUSE YOU LOOK ON THE OTHER SIDE AND 15 IS A PARKING SPACE, RIGHT.

SO ON ONE SIDE WE WOULD NOT USE IT AS A SPACE.

AND ON THE WEST SIDE IT WOULD BE A PARKING SPACE.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT BOTH DUMPSTERS THERE. AND THE, THE WASTE MANAGEMENT PEOPLE HAVE ACCESS INTO THAT LOT DOWN CLOSE TO THE BUILDING TO ACCESS THAT. CORRECT? YES, SIR. RIGHT. OKAY.

THAT'LL TAKE CARE OF THAT ONE. MR.. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE.

AT THE CURRENT TIME, THERE'S NOT A DUMPSTER ON THE ALLEYWAY? THERE IS. THERE IS TODAY. RIGHT. THERE WILL NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS THAT THAT'S NOT IN A PARKING SPACE AT THIS TIME.

[03:30:06]

THE ONE DUMPSTER THAT CURRENTLY YOU CAN SEE IN THIS AERIAL? BARELY. CURRENTLY THERE ARE OBSTRUCTIONS. YEAH, YEAH, THESE ARE OBSTRUCTING PARKING SPACES.

AND THAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THE CONDITION THAT THEY RELOCATE, THAT THESE TWO RIGHT THERE UNDERNEATH.

TO BE FAIR, THOSE CLEARLY ARE NOT THE APPROVED LOCATIONS FOR THOSE DUMPSTERS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I MOVE. OKAY. AND THEN FURTHERMORE, ON THIS ERIC, I THINK IT WOULD COME TO YOU.

WE KNOW FOR A CERTAINTY THAT REPOSITIONING THESE DUMPSTERS.

BECAUSE WHAT I'M LOOKING AT IS WHAT'S IN PLACE RIGHT NOW.

YEAH. SO IT'S NOT A GUESS. IT'S A CERTAINTY THAT MOVING THESE DUMPSTERS CLOSE TO THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE OKAY WITH EVERYONE.

YEAH. MR. TREBILCOCK HAS WORKED WITH CITY STAFF TO GO OVER ALL OF THESE ISSUES.

SO IT'S OKAY THEN? IT'S IT'S GOING TO BE OKAY.

TO BE HONEST, THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ANYWAY.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. THEY WERE NOT APPROVED TO BE IN THE PARKING SPACES.

ALL RIGHT. AND WHEN WE LET'S SAY THIS GETS APPROVED AND THERE'S 15 ACTUAL SPACES.

DO ANY OF THESE SPACES HAVE TO BE HANDICAPPED? THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION. THAT'S A FLORIDA BUILDING CODE PROVISION.

I DON'T BELIEVE THEY WOULD HAVE TO BECOME HANDICAPPED SPACES, BUT I BELIEVE MR. TREBILCOCK HAD MENTIONED THAT THIS SPACE RIGHT HERE HAS THE CAPABILITY OF BECOMING A HANDICAPPED SPACE, IF THAT IS REQUIRED. SO THERE'S NO COMMITMENT ON A HANDICAPPED SPACE RIGHT NOW? NOT CURRENTLY, BUT WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT. AND HE HAS PROVIDED THAT.

THAT IT'S UNFINISHED BUSINESS. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

AND THIS WAS BROUGHT UP EARLIER BY ONE OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS IN TERMS OF THIS IS OFF STREET PARKING, RIGHT? THIS IS WHAT THIS IS AN OFF STREET PARKING LOT.

DO WE HAVE STANDARDS WHEN WE DESIGNATE THIS AS A NOW A PARKING SOLUTION FOR A RESTAURANT? OUTDOOR DINING. DO WE HAVE STANDARDS THAT WE NEED TO MEET IN TERMS OF WALKING SURFACES, HOW PEOPLE EGRESS FROM THEIR VEHICLES AND INGRESS, BUT HOW THEY LEAVE THEIR VEHICLES AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE RESTAURANT BECAUSE IT'S NOT STANDARDS, BUT THEY HAVE TO USE PUBLIC PROPERTY.

SO I SEE WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH THIS. THE THE NATURAL INCLINATION WOULD BE TO GET FROM POINT A TO POINT B AS EASY AND QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE SOMEONE TO CROSS PRIVATE PROPERTY. SO THE WAY THAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY ACCESS THIS PARKING IS TO GO DOWN THIRD, AND THEN TURN UP THAT ALLEY AND ACCESS THE PARKING THROUGH THE ALLEY, THAT WOULD PREVENT THE USE OF ANYONE.

CAN YOU SHOW US SHOW US HOW A CUSTOMER IS GOING TO PARK AND THEN GO TO THE RESTAURANT. SO RESTAURANT IS HERE. YEAH. SO WE'LL DO IT FROM YOUR VERSION.

THEY'RE GOING TO PARK HERE AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO WALK DOWN HERE, DOWN THIS ALLEY AND THEN COME DOWN THIRD, VICE VERSA. YOU KNOW WALKING HOME THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE RESTAURANT, WALK DOWN THIRD ON, YOU KNOW, THEIR SIDEWALKS AND THEN TURN DOWN THE ALLEY.

HERE IS THAT ALLEY FREE OF POTHOLES AND CRACKS.

IT'S A USABLE ALLEY. YES. IS THE ALLEY FREE OF POTHOLES AND CRACKS AND THOSE THINGS THAT I DON'T I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.

OKAY. AND I'M USING WORDS COMING OUT OF OUR CODE, SO I'M ASKING SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THE JUST A COUPLE MORE ON THE PROPERTY AT 375 BROAD AVENUE SOUTH. ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIONS AS TO WHAT ANY TENANT CAN ADOPT IN OPERATING BUSINESS HOURS? IN OTHER WORDS, THEY CLOSE AT FIVE NOW, AND THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE.

BUT WE'VE GOT A HOTEL OPENING BUSINESS. BUSINESS PLANS CHANGE.

CAN THE BUSINESS ADOPT ANY BUSINESS HOURS THAT THEY WANT? SO IF THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THAT WE WERE APPROVING TODAY WAS AN HOURS OFFSET.

YOU'VE SEEN THOSE BEFORE WHERE YOU'LL SAY WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, A RESTAURANT HERE THAT SERVES DINNER AND IT'S USED IT'S IN THE SAME BUILDING AS A, YOU KNOW, BANK THAT CLOSES AT FIVE. AND SO THE HOURS ARE THE TRADE OFF.

THAT WOULD BE A DIFFERENT STORY. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING HERE IS NOT BASED ON AN HOURS TRADE OFF.

IT'S THE ACTUAL REQUIRED USAGE OR PRACTICAL USAGE OF THE PARKING FOR THE GALLERY SPACES IS THEY'RE SAYING THAT AT ALL TIMES OF DAY, THEY DON'T REQUIRE THE USAGE OF THE SEVEN SPACES THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO ALLOCATE TO THE OLDE NAPLES BUILDING.

SO THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S ONLY AFTER 5:00 BECAUSE THE GALLERY CLOSES AT FIVE.

[03:35:03]

THEY'RE SAYING THAT THOSE EVEN DURING THE DAY WHEN THE GALLERY IS OPEN, THEY HAVE, THROUGH OBSERVATION, HAVE DETERMINED THAT THOSE SEVEN SPACES HAVE NOT BEEN REQUIRED FOR THE GALLERY.

OKAY. AND SEVERAL THINGS ARE GOING TO CHANGE.

WE TALKED ABOUT THE HOTEL THAT'S OPENING SOON WITHIN THIS AREA AND THE DEMAND THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAVE IN THE AREA.

BUT REALLY, I'M FOCUSED ON THIS OUTDOOR DINING PORTION OF THIS.

UNLIKE THE DOWNTOWN, THIS YOU CAN RESTRICT PARKING IN THIS AREA.

SO YOU'LL SEE THEY HAVE SIGNAGE UP THERE NOW THAT SAYS PARKING RESERVED FOR THEIR OWN PRIVATE USES.

SO THIS THIS LOT BEHIND 375 BROAD IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC FOR PARKING FOR ANY OTHER USE, THAT IS, PARKING THAT IS ABLE TO BE DESIGNATED ONLY FOR THIS RESTAURANT AND THAT GALLERY.

AND OTHER THAN THE SIGNAGE. THE PETITIONER HAS OFFERED CERTAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO HELP MANAGE THAT PARKING AREA. BECAUSE WHAT WE SEE NOW IS NOT NECESSARILY WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE.

THE BEFORE I MOVE TO THE THE LAST QUESTION, IS THERE EMPLOYEE ONLY DESIGNATED PARKING SPACES IN THIS PARKING LOT OR ARE THERE PLANS TO DEVELOP SUCH THEY SO I MEAN, AS THE PETITIONER HAD MENTIONED AND I WILL CONFIRM THAT THE CODE WHEN WE DO THE PARKING RATIOS. SO ONE PER 100 RESTAURANT. IT'S GROSS.

AND THAT INCLUDES PATRONS, EMPLOYEES, EVERYTHING.

YEAH, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE RESTAURANT. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE ART GALLERY.

NOTHING IS DESIGNATED. IT'S JUST PARKING FOR THE ART GALLERY, WHETHER THAT BE EMPLOYEE.

PATRON. GOT IT. EVERYONE. THAT'S JUST THEIR PRIVATE PARKING.

AND THEN BECAUSE THIS IS AN OPEN PARKING LOT CURRENTLY WHAT, IF ANYTHING, WOULD WE NEED TO KNOW AS WE MAKE THIS DECISION? IF IT'S THE WILL OF COUNCIL TO HAVE A A GATE, SOMETHING THAT'S ALLOWING PEOPLE TO COME IN. I DON'T THINK, GIVEN. I MEAN, NORM'S AN ENGINEER, BUT GIVEN THE LAYOUT OF THIS PARKING AREA AND THE LOCATION OF THOSE LAST TWO PARKING SPACES RIGHT UP AGAINST THE ALLEY, I DON'T THINK IT'S FEASIBLE TO HAVE A GATE IN THIS LOCATION.

I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN ACCESS TO THOSE PARKING SPACES.

COULD YOU TAKE ME? THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY THE PETITIONER THAT TALKED ABOUT POSSIBLE REMEDIES TO THE PARKING AREA. AND I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE I SOLVE CORRECTLY WHAT I SAW.

YES, SIR. IT'S LISTED AS A REMEDY. YOU COULD DO A SLIDING GATE.

THERE IT IS. SO THAT IT'S NOT OVERLAPPING THE ALLEYWAY.

SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S A TWO DIMENSIONAL GATE, RIGHT? IT SLIDES RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. HOW WOULD THAT BE ASSESSED? IF I'M IF I'M COMING TO THE RESTAURANT, I SEE SIGNS AT THE RESTAURANT THAT SAY PARKING IS AVAILABLE HERE.

YES, SIR. AND I GO THERE. HOW DO I GET INTO THE PARKING LOT? IF IT HAS A ACCESS MANAGEMENT TOOL SUCH AS A GATE, ETC.? JUST USE YOUR APP. USE THE APP. YEP. SO YOU JUST HAVE A LITTLE QR CODE THAT COMES UP AND IT SAYS YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S BOOKED THE OUTDOOR TABLE AND YOU'RE THE ONE WHO GETS TO GO IN THERE. SO COUNCIL, FOR ME, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DESIGNATING SEVEN PARKING SPACES, AND THESE ARE NECESSARY TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE RESTAURANT DINING. THEN, TO THE EXTENT WE CAN FACILITATE THAT, THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE TO ME. SO I'M JUST MENTIONING THAT, MADAM MAYOR, THAT'S ALL I HAD AT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER. OH, NOPE.

SORRY. IT'S. I HAVE BARTON FIRST. THANK YOU. THIS IS FOR ERICA.

PAB VOTED TO DENY THIS 4 TO 3, AND THE DISSENTING VOTES WERE BASED ON, QUOTE, UNQUOTE, LACK OF SUFFICIENT PARKING AND THEN STAFF, THOUGH THEIR FINDINGS WERE, QUOTE UNQUOTE, STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET.

CAN YOU HAVE TWO SEPARATE IDEAS HERE? THERE ARE CODE REQUIREMENTS WHICH I ENFORCE.

SO THE CODE SAYS THAT YOU'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THREE SPACES PER 1000FT² OF OUTDOOR DINING.

BUT AS WE ALL KNOW, PARKING IS SIMILAR TO TRAFFIC IS.

THERE'S THE ON PAPER REQUIREMENT AND THEN THERE'S THE EXPERIENCED CONDITION.

SO YES, THEY ARE MEETING THROUGH APPROVAL OF THIS PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

THEY ARE PROVIDING SEVEN SPACES, WHICH IS THE THREE SPACES PER 1000 REQUIRED FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING.

[03:40:04]

SO THE SO THE PAB IS DETERMINED THAT IN PRACTICALITY THAT WOULD BE INSUFFICIENT.

SO SO THEIR DENIAL IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT PARKING IN NAPLES IS DIFFICULT.

I YEAH, I WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM. BUT I THINK THAT'S IT COMES DOWN TO MORE.

IF YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING PARKING SPACES ON SITE, THE SEVEN SPACES PROVIDED OFF SITE THEY DID NOT FEEL WAS SUFFICIENT.

WHEREAS MY DETERMINATION IS THAT IT IS CODE COMPLIANT.

SO THE SEVEN SPACES THAT THEY ARE PROVIDING OFF SITE MEET OUR CODE, AND THEREFORE THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MET FROM STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE. YES, THEY MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED. THANK YOU. KRAMER.

MISS ERICA, AND THIS IS TO MISS. MISS LINDA'S QUESTION.

THIS THING WAS THE HISTORY IS A LOT, BUT THIS THING WAS LITIGATED.

THE JUDGE DETERMINED 86 SPACES. WAS IT 76? 76.

SORRY. THAT'S A DONE DEAL FOR THE INDOOR. LIKE THAT'S A DONE DEAL.

AND THEY'RE GOING TO DEVELOP THAT BASED ON WHAT THE JUDGE RULED.

I MEAN THAT'S AND PLUS IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW TODAY ANYWAY.

BUT JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. FIRST I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT A PREVIOUS COUNCIL THAT REALLY GOT GETS BAD KNOCKS FOR, YOU KNOW, BEING OBTRUSIVE. FOR NOT SUPPORTING REDEVELOPMENT BUILDINGS COMING UP TO CODE.

JUST ANYTHING WOULD LIKE THAT. THEY FOUND A WAY HOME FOR YOU ALL.

I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THEY FOUND A WAY TO ACCOMMODATE THIS AND MAKE THIS HAPPEN. SO LET ME JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THAT PUTS TO REST SOME OF THAT TALK.

SO THANKS GUYS FOR THAT. I THINK IT'S COOL WHEN THE RESERVATIONS MADE THAT I'VE DONE HAD TO DO THIS, JUST THAT, THE SAME DEAL. HERE'S QR CODE TO GET IN AND IT GIVES YOU SPECIFIC LIKE TURN BY TURN DIRECTIONS THAT COME UP.

WE'LL EVEN TALK TO YOU. I'VE HAD TO DO THAT BEFORE FOR SPORTING EVENTS AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO GET INTO, YOU KNOW, WELL, I'LL JUST SAY IT, A VIP AREA. THAT'S A SORRY, THAT'S JUST SO RARE FOR ME THAT THAT'S A COOL THING TO DO.

AND THEN SO THANKS FOR THAT. I WILL ALSO SAY THIS IF YOU DO VALET.

AND WHEN I FIRST CAME HERE, WE TOOK SUCH A BIG PAY CUT.

ME AND MY COACHES WERE IN THE OFF SEASON RUNNING VALET AROUND TOWN.

AND WE WENT WAY FARTHER THAN THAT TO RUN CARS, I PROMISE YOU THAT.

SO THIS THIS. WHAT IF Y'ALL THINK THIS IS A LONG WAY TO GO TO PARK A CAR? THAT IS NOT THE CASE. BEYOND THAT, BRINGING UP ALLEYS AND SOME WE GOT.

I GOT A LETTER WHERE SOMEBODY WAS HAMMERING ABOUT USING AN ALLEY FOR IF YOU'RE A LOCAL, YOU USE YOU USE ALLEYS AROUND HERE LIKE THAT'S A THING.

AND TO ACT LIKE IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT OR NEW OR DANGEROUS OR WHATEVER IS SILLY IN MY VIEW.

SO LET'S TAKE THAT, PUT THAT WHERE THAT BELONGS.

AND, AND THE OTHER THING WHERE THE I'M, I'M JUST GOING TO SAY IT AGAIN, IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW ABOUT WHO'S USING IT, WHETHER IT'S RESTAURANT STAFF OR PATRONS. OUR CODE.

MY POINT OF ALL THIS IS THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS.

AND THAT'S CLEARLY BEEN SAID. AND THE FACT THAT SOMEBODY ELSE DENIED IT FOR WHATEVER REASON.

I MEAN, IN MY VIEW, IF WE JUST PAY ATTENTION TO OUR CODE AND WHAT THE STANDARDS WE'VE SET AND THEY'RE MEETING THEM ALL, THIS SHOULD THIS SHOULD LAST ABOUT TWO MINUTES.

AND HOWEVER YOU SIT, PEOPLE OR WHATEVER. YOU KNOW, MY SISTER OWNED A RESTAURANT.

IT WAS NOT THE HIGH END. IT WAS DER WIENERSCHNITZEL ON THE LOOP IN LUBBOCK, TEXAS.

VERY SUCCESSFUL THOUGH. SHE'D BE ALL FOR SOMEBODY HAVING SOME BUSINESS PLAN THAT DOESN'T WORK, AND THEY CAN SHUT DOWN AND SHE'LL TAKE THE BUSINESS. SO THAT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW EITHER. WE GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT. WE'RE TRYING TO MEET THE CRITERION FOR THIS.

YOU'VE MET THE CRITERION FOR IT. AND TO HAVE, OBVIOUSLY, THE DINING PLAN OR WHAT? THE LIFE SAFETY PLAN. ALL WE EVER SEE IS PLANS, OF COURSE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY ARE.

WE'RE SHOWING WHAT IS PROPOSED. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO MEET THAT CRITERIA ONCE IT'S ACCEPTED AND IT'S BEEN ACCEPTED. SO AGAIN, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT ALL THE HULLABALOO IS ABOUT. YOU CAN LIKE IT OR NOT LIKE IT.

WHATEVER. BUT IT MEETS OUR REQUIREMENTS, AND I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THIS THING FORWARD.

COUNCIL MEMBER. JUST A JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS ON SECTION 50.

DASH 102. THERE'S THERE WAS AN EXCERPT OF IT GIVEN IN THE STAFF REPORT ON HOW IT'S MEETING THE CRITERIA.

BUT I WAS QUESTIONING THAT FANTASY WAS LAST USED 20 YEARS AGO, AND IT WAS A DELI WINE AND CHEESE SHOP.

CORRECT? YES, SIR. AND AFTER THAT, IT WAS RETAIL.

SO IT WAS THEN IT WAS CLOSED. SO IT HASN'T BEEN USED EVER SINCE THEN.

THAT BUILDING. YES. BUT REMEMBER, THIS ALL GOES BACK DECADES.

WE'RE IN TWO DECADES AT THIS POINT OF THIS LITIGATION, SO.

OKAY, WELL, ASIDE FROM THE LITIGATION, JUST AS READING OUR CODES, YOU KNOW, IT SAYS LOCATION FACILITIES MAY BE PROVIDED OFF

[03:45:05]

SITE UP TO 600FT. HOWEVER, THE SECTION SHALL NOT APPLY TO NEW DEVELOPMENT, AND IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT IS A DEFINED TERM. WOULD YOU CONSIDER THIS BECAUSE IT'S BEEN CLOSED AND NOW IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT USE, A NEW DEVELOPMENT? I WOULD NOT. IT'S A CHANGE OF USE FOR SURE, BUT WE WOULDN'T CONSIDER A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

AND IN FACT, WE CAN'T CONSIDER THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE BY VIRTUE OF IT BEING A NONCONFORMITY, IT HAS TO REMAIN. THEY CAN REPAIR AND MAINTAIN, BUT THEY HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT'S THERE TODAY.

OKAY. SO IT'S JUST A CHANGE IN USE. SO IT IS NOT A NEW DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S NOT REALLY A CHANGE IN USE BECAUSE IT'S STILL RESTAURANT RETAIL SPACES.

IT'S A CHANGE IN OPERATOR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WITHIN THE CODE.

OKAY. THE SECOND QUESTION IS, DOES THIRD HAVE OR DOES THIS AREA HAVE AN OVERLAY OR ANY PARKING INCENTIVES.

THEY HAVE AN OVERLAY, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE THE OFF STREET PARKING INCENTIVES.

THEY DON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE LIKE YOU DO IN THE DOWNTOWN OR THE FIFTH AVE OVERLAY.

SO THEY ARE REQUIRED TO PARK THEIR OUTDOOR DINING AT THE REGULAR THREE PER THOUSAND RATE, AND THEY THEY DO NOT PURCHASE THOSE SPACES.

THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PURSUING OFF-SITE. SO THEY DO NOT HAVE THERE IS NO IT IS COMPLETELY SILENT ON PARKING IN THIS AREA, JUST IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S REQUIRED REQUIRED PARKING AT THE RATIOS REQUIRED.

OKAY. OKAY. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THIS BECAUSE, WELL, NOT STRUGGLING WITH IT.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, WHEN YOU READ THE WHOLE MUNI CODE, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, SOME SUBTLETIES IN THERE THAT WERE, YOU KNOW, THAT YOU HAD EVALUATED BUT WERE NOT IN OUR STAFF REPORT.

IT TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE. IT DOES MEET THE, THE THE OUR CODE.

AND I DON'T KNOW HOW WE COULD DENY IT. I THINK THEY NEED THE 15.

THEY NEED ALL OF THE SPOTS. AND I THINK THEY ARE COMMITTED TO GIVING THOSE SPOTS.

IS THAT CORRECT? OR THE OFF SITE LOT? THE 375 SO BY CODE THE BUILDING THAT IS THERE REQUIRES 15 SPACES.

BUT THE PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS THROUGH THE CONDITIONAL USE THAT YOU'RE APPROVING SHOWS THAT IN PRACTICALITY PRACTICE THEY ONLY UTILIZE EIGHT OF THOSE SPACES WHICH ALLOWS THE SURPLUS OF SEVEN TO BE ALLOCATED TO THIS.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND JUST GOING DOWN THERE IN SEASON, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T SEEM IT YOU KNOW IT.

MUST THIS BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE THIS EVALUATION THAT THEY NEED LESS THAN THAT OR CAN WE DO WE HAVE THE PURVIEW TO SAY LOOKS LIKE IT'S A LITTLE MORE CROWDED.

YOU NEED TO ADD MORE SPOTS. I MEAN, YOU ALWAYS HAVE THE PURVIEW TO REVIEW IT.

THAT'S WHY IT COMES BEFORE YOU. IT'S NOT JUST SUBMITTED AND APPROVED.

SO YOU HAVE. YEAH. YEAH. JUST FROM BEING THERE, IT SEEMS LIKE A LITTLE BIT CROWDED.

ALSO, I LIKE THE IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, THIS IS AN OBSCURE PLACE TO PARK.

I DON'T THINK IT'S INTUITIVE. AND SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW PRACTICALLY THIS IS GOING TO WORK, ESPECIALLY DURING A IF THEY DON'T HAVE A RESERVATION, IF THEY'RE WALKING, WILL THEY SORT OF STOP AT THE BEGINNING, GO IN, GO GET A BARCODE OR A QR CODE? AND THEN AND THEN RUN AND PARK OR, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT SURE HOW THIS WILL WORK.

ON YOUR PHONE. PARDON? SO SHE'S SAYING IF SOMEONE IF YOU DON'T HAVE A IF YOU DON'T HAVE A RESERVATION.

YEAH. I'M NOT. THAT WOULD BE A. YEAH. I'D JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE, YOU KNOW, HOP IN AT THE LAST MINUTE. AND HOW WOULD A NON RESERVATION WORK? I THINK RICK SAID THAT FOR THIS PLACE TO WORK, EVERY SEAT'S GOT TO BE TAKEN UP.

AND I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU, BUT I CAN'T GET A TABLE AT CAMP YELLOWS IN THE IN THE PEAK TIMES WHEN THE DEMAND IS, IS AT PEAK. SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHO'S WALKING INTO THIS PLACE IF IT'S PERFORMING AT THE LEVEL THAT RICK HAS HAS TALKED ABOUT.

OKAY. LET'S SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS THE ODD CHANCE 1 IN 1,000,000 BECAUSE I YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S TOUGH TO GET IT, BUT YOU CAN GET THEM.

HOW WOULD IT WORK? JUST TALK TO STAFF, GET YOUR QR CODE, GO PARK.

SO THEY WERE SO SOMEBODY WOULD THEY WOULD SORT OF PUT THEIR CAR IN FRONT OF THE RESTAURANT, DASH IN, ASK FOR, GET A QR CODE. SO I THINK LET'S LET'S PAUSE FOR A SECOND RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S NO MATH THAT SUGGESTS THAT WE HAVE TO PUT UP THESE GATES.

THERE'S NO MATH. THERE ARE 15 SPACES ON SITE TODAY.

NORM HAS SAID THAT THE PEAK THAT HE MEASURED WAS SEVEN BEING USED FOR THE ART GALLERY.

SORRY, ERICA, NOT EIGHT. IN THE MATH THAT SAYS SEVEN.

WE NEED SEVEN FOR FOR OUR OUTDOOR DINING. SO THERE'S STILL ONE SPARE.

SO THAT'S A RELIEF VALVE FOR BOTH USES. AND THEN THOSE ARE.

[03:50:02]

AND THAT COULD BE HAPPENING ALL DAY, RIGHT? WE'VE SEEN THAT THE SEVEN THAT THE ART GALLERY IS REQUIRING.

THAT'S THE PEAK. THERE ARE PLENTY OF OTHER HOURS IN THE DAY WHERE IT'S FIVE.

IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S MORE SPACES AVAILABLE.

AND THEN ON THE OUTDOOR DINING, WE KNOW THAT THE THE PEAK IS SEVEN BECAUSE THAT'S THE CODE THREE PER THOUSAND.

AND SO THE REMEDY IS THAT THERE'S A GATE, BUT FOR ALL OTHER HOURS OF THE DAY, THERE'S NO GATE.

THERE'S NO NEED FOR A QR CODE. THAT'S A IF WE NEED TO IF THIS IS NOT WORKING OUT, THEN THERE'S A REMEDY IN THE CODE THAT THAT ERICA AND THE CODE ENFORCEMENT TEAM CAN COME BACK TO US AND SAY, HEY, IT'S TIME TO PUT THAT GATE UP.

IT'S TIME TO PUT IN PLACE THOSE QR CODES. OKAY.

AND THAT REMEDY, YOU KNOW, IF THAT REMEDY GOES INTO PLACE, HOW WOULD THE ART GALLERY USE THE SPACE? THEN EACH ONE OF THOSE USERS HAS A QR CODE. THERE'S ALSO PUBLIC PARKING ON THE BROAD ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

SO IF THEY'RE BUSY AND THEY'RE TRYING TO USE THAT.

I GUESS THEY WOULD PARK OUTSIDE OF THE GALLERY, GO IN AND GET A QR CODE BECAUSE THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS A RESERVATION AND A YEP.

OKAY, SO IF THEY KNOW THEY HAVE TO BE THERE FOR A COUPLE OF HOURS TO FLIP THROUGH THE POTENTIAL PIECES.

IF IT'S RICK'S WIFE COMING DOWN AS AN INTERIOR DESIGNER AND NEEDS TO GO THROUGH.

HEY, WHAT DO WE HAVE ACCESS TO? WHAT ARE THE OPTIONS? THIS IS THE SPACE. THEY KNOW IT'S A COUPLE HOURS MEETING.

THEY DO THAT STEP TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY PARK THE CAR IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. SO. OKAY, I HAVE I JUST YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO REMIND, BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW HOW QUICKLY THIS IS GOING TO BE WRAPPED UP, BUT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE WAITING ON ZOOM FOR THE EXECUTIVE SESSION.

AND I KNOW WE REGULARLY SOMETIMES KEEP THEM WAITING, BUT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DON'T IF WE COULD.

I KNOW WE DON'T LIKE TO BREAK, BUT I DO THINK THERE'S SOME PUBLIC COMMENT.

MAYOR, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANT TO OPEN AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AND THEN GO UPSTAIRS AND DO WHAT WE HAVE TO DO IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IF WE COULD.

I WOULD AGREE. I JUST WANT EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER TO HAVE THEIR OPTION TO SPEAK TO STAFF ABOUT STAFF REPORT.

SO I HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THE STAFF REPORT? I DO. MISS MARTIN, WHERE IS THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PARKING LOT? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT SO THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE ADDRESSES.

BOTH PARKING. BOTH. I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT COMMERCIAL INTRUSION TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA.

AND I KNOW THAT THIS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ABUTS. AND THEY WOULD SHARE THE ALLEY TO ENTER THEIR PROPERTIES.

SO THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE. I HAD THE SAME CONCERN.

AND THAT'S WHERE THOSE CONDITIONS CAME FROM WITH RESPECT TO LIGHTING AND THAT IT'S THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT IT'S HANDLED RESPONSIBLY.

BUT WE DID ADDRESS THAT IN. YOU'LL SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD GOING THROUGH ALL OF THOSE CONDITIONS.

IS THAT IN HERE? YES, IT'S IN THE PACKET. IT IS CALLED STAFF REPORT.

OKAY. I GUESS IT LOOKED LIKE THE SAME STAFF REPORT.

NOPE. THE STAFF REPORT FOR ITEMS THAT GO TO PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD BEFORE THEY GO TO PAB, WE DO A MUCH MORE ABBREVIATED AGENDA MEMORANDUM BECAUSE ALL THAT INFORMATION IS ALREADY PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PAB.

IF I MAY, I'M SORRY. NO, THERE'S A POINT. THERE'S A POINT OF ORDER.

CAN I PLEASE LET HER FINISH WHAT SHE'S SAYING? I'M SORRY, MISS MARTIN. SO WE GO THROUGH ALL THE CRITERIA IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD.

THAT'S WHERE YOU GET YOUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS AND ALL OF THE THE ANALYSIS AGAINST FROM OTHER STAFF MEMBERS.

THE DEPARTMENT ANALYSIS IS IN THAT REPORT. OKAY, JUST TELL ME WHAT PAGE IT'S ON AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO TO.

I DON'T UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE THE PAGE NUMBERS THAT YOU HAVE IN THE PRINTED PACKET.

IT'S OKAY. YOU CAN JUST TELL ME THE. IT'S SO COOL.

I MEAN, I CAN TELL YOU IN ORDER IN THE CONDITIONAL USE, YOU HAVE THE AGENDA MEMO, THE RESOLUTION, THEN THAT ONE PAGE PLAN FROM THE ARCHITECTURAL AND THEN IT'S THE STAFF REPORT, BUT IT JUST HAS A HEADER ON IT WITH THE CITY SEAL UNDER.

I HAVE THE ATTACHMENTS LISTED. SO IT'S WHICH ONE IT'S CALLED.

IT'S JUST TITLED STAFF REPORT. AND THAT'S THE STAFF REPORT.

IT IS. YEP. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE PUBLIC SPEAKER, ACTUALLY.

TWO. AND THAT'S KAREN LAWSON AND SEAN MURPHY.

GOOD AFTERNOON. AFTERNOON. KAREN LARSON. MURPHY, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TODAY.

I AM A RESIDENT OF NAPLES, FULL TIME RESIDENT SINCE 2012.

[03:55:02]

I AM DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE OLD NAPLES HOTEL AND THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING.

AND I AM HERE TO ASK YOU FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY IN APPROVING THE PARKING AND FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING.

I THINK THERE'S A LOT THAT WE CAN WE CAN DO TO BE CREATIVE.

I THINK A LOT OF IT WAS SPOKEN ABOUT TODAY. I HAPPEN TO BE THE OWNER OF BROAD AVENUE STUDIOS, WHICH IS AN INTERIOR DESIGN FIRM BOTH ON THE COMMERCIAL AND HIGH END LUXURY SIDE.

I HAPPEN TO BE A FRIEND AND COLLEAGUE OF WENDY BARRY, AND I'M ALSO AN OWNER'S OWNER AND OWNER'S REP COMPANY FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE, LIKE THE SHARED PARKING AGREEMENTS THAT WE SPOKE ABOUT LIMITED TIME ON PARKING AND INCENTIVES FOR WALKING TRANSIT, BIKING THE ECONOMIC VALUE OF ALL OF MY NEIGHBORS THAT I HAPPEN TO KNOW ABOUT THAT WALK, BECAUSE THERE'S OUTDOOR DINING.

IT'S AN INCENTIVE TO WALK AND TO GET PEOPLE OUT IN COMMUNITY AND NOT TO MENTION THE LOCAL THE LOCAL STORES THAT WILL BENEFIT FROM ALL OF THIS ACTIVITY. I RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT TODAY.

THANK YOU. ARE YOU USING THE REST OF THAT TIME? SIR, IF YOU'LL SEPARATE. SEPARATE IF I CAN. OH, OKAY.

SORRY I HAD IT AS ONE. YEAH. GOOD AFTERNOON. I'M SEAN MURPHY, KAREN'S HUSBAND.

WE ARE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM THE FUTURE OLDE OLD NAPLES HOTEL AND DOWN THE BLOCK FROM THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING.

WE ARE HERE IN THREE, FOUR, 102. WE FULLY SUPPORT THE OUTDOOR DINING.

IF ANYBODY'S GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT AND EXPERIENCE IT IN THIS, IN THIS ROOM, MORE THAN OTHERS, IT'S KAREN AND MYSELF, AND WE HAVE NO OBJECTION.

BY WAY OF BACKGROUND, I'M A LAWYER HERE IN TOWN.

I GRADUATED LAW SCHOOL AT GEORGETOWN BACK IN 1989.

I'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR A WHILE. I STARTED OUT MY CAREER EARLY ON IN NEW YORK, AND THEN I WENT TO THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT.

I WAS A TRIAL AND APPELLATE LAWYER ALL OVER THE UNITED STATES.

SO THAT TRAINING AND BACKGROUND INFORMS MY VIEW OF THIS.

I THINK THIS IS BOTH A LEGAL ISSUE AS WELL AS A FUNDAMENTAL FAIRNESS ISSUE.

THIS COUNCIL DENIED THE PETITION FOR OUTDOOR DINING BACK IN 23.

AND THERE WAS A PROCEEDING FOLLOWING THAT UNDER FLUID FLOW, THE FLORIDA LAND USE ENVIRONMENTAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION ACT AND THAT SPECIAL MAGISTRATE FOUND FAIRLY AND PROPERLY IN MY OPINION, THAT IT WAS UNREASONABLE AND IT WAS AN UNFAIR BURDEN ON THE LLC'S USE OF THEIR REAL PROPERTY TO HAVE A DENIAL OF OUTDOOR DINING BASED UPON THE PARKING.

NOTE THAT THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT IN 1921, TWO YEARS BEFORE THE CITY WAS INCORPORATED.

OKAY, SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AN EX POST FACTO LAW, RIGHT? THAT'S MY LEGAL TRAINING. RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF STATUTES AND REGULATIONS IS DISFAVORED IN THIS COUNTRY.

US SUPREME COURT HAS FOUND THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

ARTICLE ONE, SECTION NINE OF THE CONSTITUTION FORBIDS EX POST FACTO LAWS.

DUE PROCESS CLAUSE IS BEING IMPLICATED HERE. COURTS GENERALLY PRESUME LAWS THAT ARE ENACTED.

THEY'RE NOT RETROACTIVE UNLESS IT'S CLEARLY STATED IN THE LAW.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE CASE HERE. AND COURTS GENERALLY STRIKE DOWN RETROACTIVITY IF IT CREATES AN UNFAIR OUTCOME.

WE HAVE UNFAIRNESS HERE. WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT WAS THERE LONG BEFORE THIS REGULATION CAME ALONG.

AND NOW A LATER ORDINANCE IS BEING IMPOSED IN PART TO DENY OUTDOOR DINING.

THAT, TO ME, IS AN UNFAIR BURDEN. SO MY CONCLUSION IS THAT DENYING THE PROPERTY OWNER THE RIGHT TO PROVIDE OUTDOOR DINING IS NOT ONLY A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLES BASED UPON A DISFAVORED, RETROACTIVE APPLICATION OF REGULATIONS BY A CITY THAT WAS INCORPORATED AFTER THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED, BUT IT ALSO HANDICAPS THE POTENTIAL FOR ECONOMIC SUCCESS OF THE HOTEL.

A DECISION AGAINST OUTDOOR DINING, I THINK, IS NOT ONLY A LEGALLY WRONG RESULT, BUT AN ECONOMICALLY WRONG RESULT.

SO I URGE YOU TO TAKE THIS VERY REASONABLE ALTERNATIVE THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED TODAY BY THE CONSULTANTS FOR THE OLD NAPLES BUILDING,

[04:00:07]

BY THEIR PARKING PEOPLE, THEIR LAWYERS, THEIR ARCHITECTS, AND APPROVE IT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION. THANK YOU. COUNCIL.

[13.A) Executive Session regarding Riccardo, Theresa v. City of Naples, Case No. 24-CA-002400, 20th Judicial Circuit, in and for Collier County, Florida (12:30pm Time Certain).]

BEING THAT WE DO HAVE A EXECUTIVE SESSION WE HAVE HEARD FROM PUBLIC COMMENT IF WE ARE TO TAKE A BREAK AT THIS TIME. REMEMBER, WE ARE STILL IN A HEARING. AND WOULD YOU LIKE TO INFORM THEM, MR. MCCONNELL? I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. MAYOR. SO OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS QUASI JUDICIAL.

YOU'VE JUST CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THIS.

SO WHEN WE BREAK, DO NOT HAVE ANY CONVERSATIONS OBVIOUSLY AMONGST YOURSELF, BUT WITH ANY CONSULTANTS OR ELSE YOU'LL HAVE TO DISCLOSE EX PARTE WHEN YOU COME BACK IN, THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION. WE'LL ALL BE TOGETHER AND WE'LL WALK IN A SINGLE FILE LINE BACK HERE WITH ME BEING YOUR CHAPERON.

SO IT WILL BE VERY CLEAR. BUT WHEN WE COME BACK, WE WILL BE IN THE DELIBERATION STAGE OF THIS IN WHICH YOU CAN ASK QUESTIONS AND THEN ULTIMATELY MAKE A DECISION. SO WITH THAT, MAYOR, IF I COULD ANNOUNCE THE START OF THE.

YES IF I COULD JUST. ARE WE TAKING A BREAK? AND CAN LEAVE IT AS AFTER WE COME BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE'LL CONTINUE ON WITH ITEMS 11 C AND D, CORRECT.

THANK YOU SIR. OKAY, SO THAT BEING SAID, AT THE DECEMBER 3RD, 2025 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING PURSUANT TO SECTION 286 .011, SUBPARAGRAPH A, FLORIDA STATUTES CITY ATTORNEY ANNOUNCED HIS REQUEST FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION IN CASTILE.

NAPLES. PRIDE VERSUS CITY OF NAPLES NAPLES CITY COUNCIL.

TERESA HEITMAN, TERRY. HUTCHINSON, RAYMOND KRISEMAN, BETH PETRANOFF, BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENNIMAN, BERNARD BARTON AND THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITIES AS CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS, NAPLES POLICE DEPARTMENT CYRIL DOMINGUEZ AND HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS NAPLES CHIEF OF POLICE. CASE NUMBER 2025 CV 00291 G.S. KCD, UNITED STATES COURT, DISTRICT COURT, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA, FORT MYERS DIVISION CITY COUNCIL AGREED TO MEET IN EXECUTIVE SESSION ON TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10TH, AS REQUESTED BY ME. IT IS APPROXIMATELY 1247 AT THE UPSTAIRS CONFERENCE ROOM IN THE SECOND FLOOR OF CITY HALL, AND A PUBLIC NOTICE OF THIS SESSION WAS POSTED ON DECEMBER 4TH BY THE CITY CLERK.

THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS EXPECTED TO LAST APPROXIMATELY ONE HOUR.

DISCUSSION DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION IS LIMITED TO SETTLEMENT NEGOTIATIONS OR STRATEGY RELATED TO LITIGATION EXPENDITURES.

THE ENTIRE SESSION IS RECORDED BY A CERTIFIED COURT REPORTER WHO RECORDS THE TIMES OF COMMENCEMENT NAMES OF EVERYONE SPEAKING, COURT REPORTER'S NOTES ARE FULLY TRANSCRIBED AND FILED WITH THE CITY CLERK WITHIN A REASONABLE TIME AFTER THE MEETING. FOLLOWING THE FOLLOWING INDIVIDUALS WILL BE PRESENT DURING THE EXECUTIVE SESSION MAYOR TERESA HEITMANN, COUNCIL MEMBERS TERRY HUTCHISON, RAY CHRISTMAN, BETH PETRANOFF, BILL KRAMER, LINDA PENMAN, BERNARD BARTON, CITY MANAGER GARY YOUNG, INSURANCE COUNCIL DAVID JORDAN, CITY ATTORNEY MATTHEW MCCONNELL, ATTORNEY ODELL DICKMAN, AND ATTORNEY PETE PATTERSON, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM COURT REPORTING.

WITH THAT, WE MAY BEGIN. OKAY. WE'RE BACK FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION, MR. MCCONNELL. YES. THANK YOU, MAYOR.

SO I'M GOING TO ANNOUNCE THAT THE EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS OBVIOUSLY BEEN TERMINATED.

NO ACTION IS NEEDED AT THIS TIME OR ELSE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN AN AGENDA ITEM STATING SUCH. THEREFORE, WE ARE BACK IN 11 B AND 11 C OR 11 C AND 11 D AS IN DOG.

THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. AND I'LL JUST WRAP UP MY QUESTIONS.

AND THAT WAS WITH MISS MARTIN ON THE STAFF REPORT.

AND YOU SAID IN INCLUDED IN OUR PACKET, CAN YOU JUST TELL ME HOW THE STAFF REPORT FOR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE IMPACT ON THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL.

SO ONE OF THE ERIC MARTIN, PLANNING DIRECTOR.

IN THE CRITERIA FOR THE CONDITIONAL USE, YOU HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ASPECTS, INCLUDING THERE'S BUFFERING REQUIREMENTS ETC.. AND WE DID ADD IN HERE THAT THIS WOULD BE YOU WERE ESSENTIALLY TAKING WHAT IS CURRENTLY A PRETTY BENIGN USE OF A PARKING AREA FOR AN ART GALLERY THAT IS, YOU KNOW, OPEN BETWEEN 8:08 A.M. AND 5 P.M.

AND YOU WOULD BE ADDING ESSENTIALLY PARKING FOR A NEW RESTAURANT USE, WHICH WOULD HAVE MUCH DIFFERENT HOURS OF OPERATION THAN THE.

THE GALLERY ITSELF. AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT ARE IN YOUR RESOLUTION RELATED TO THE SIGNAGE, THE LIGHTING, AND THAT THE PETITIONER WILL ENSURE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, RESPONSIBLE USE OF THAT ALLEYWAY AND THE AND THE PARKING AREA ITSELF.

THEY DID PROVIDE, I THINK, IN THE PRESENTATION THERE WAS AN IMAGE THAT THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER ALONG.

[04:05:05]

CAN I SKIP THROUGH YOUR PRESENTATION? IS THAT OKAY? IF I'M GOING, AM I GOING THE WRONG DIRECTION? I CAN HELP YOU. SORRY. THERE WE GO. YEAH. SO THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER.

WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXITING THIS PARKING AREA AND THEN BETWEEN THAT AND THE NEIGHBORS DIRECTLY ACROSS THE ALLEY AND THAT IS IN THE RESOLUTION FOR ITEM. SO IN THE IN THE CONDITIONAL USE RESOLUTION, YOU'LL SEE A NUMBER OF CONDITIONS THAT ARE PROPOSED. AND I'LL READ THE ONES THAT ARE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

WE ASKED THEM TO SPECIFY THE HOURS OF OPERATION.

SO YOU'LL SEE THAT NUMBER TWO PROVIDES THE ACTUAL HOURS OF OPERATION.

AND THE REASON WE ASKED FOR THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF THE RESTAURANT IS THOSE WILL CORRELATE TO THE PARKING AREA.

AND THEN THE NEXT WAS IT WILL BE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PETITIONER TO ENSURE THAT THE OFF-SITE PARKING DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AND TO ENSURE THAT THE CONDUCT RELATED TO THE OFF-SITE PARKING DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A NUISANCE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

PATRONS COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S NOISE STANDARDS UNDER SECTION 22 DASH 37.

THEN THERE WAS ALSO THAT THE PARKING AREA IS DARK AND COULD BE UNSAFE. THE PETITIONER WILL ADD LIGHTING THAT IS ADEQUATE BUT THE MINIMUM REQUIRED TO ENSURE SAFETY OF THE PATRONS.

AND THEN ALSO THERE'S THE NUMBER FIVE, WHICH IS THE CONDITION RELATIVE TO SIGNAGE WILL BE ADDED TO ENSURE THAT PEOPLE KNOW THAT THE PARKING IS BACK THERE.

SO THEY'RE NOT CIRCLING THE THE BLOCK. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT ON THE RECORD.

I'LL JUST SAY AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE TO APPROVE THIS, I DON'T FIND THAT WE HAVE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT'S NEEDED TO MOVE FORWARD, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW IF WE APPROVE THIS RESOLUTION TODAY, NOT KNOWING THE DETAILS OF WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MADE TO THAT PARKING LOT.

AND. THE LIGHTING DETAILS, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT GOING TO COME BACK TO US.

AND ALSO THE FACT THAT I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT AS BUILT AND HOW THAT AREA REALLY OPERATES. SO I DON'T IF IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH SPACE, THEN DOES THAT COME BACK TO US? OR, YOU KNOW, HOW THAT WOULD GO FORWARD AND VALET IS NOT ADDRESSED IN HERE.

CAN THEY USE THE VALET FOR THE HOTEL? THEY CANNOT.

SO I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE LEAVING VALET OPEN ENDED BECAUSE THE ONLY WAY THEY COULD HAVE VALET IS TO HAVE RIGHT OF WAY SPACE TAKEN UP. SO IT'S MY. AND I THINK THE WAY YOU WOULD OPERATE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THEY WILL NOT HAVE VALET.

THERE IS NO APPROVAL FOR VALET. THAT IS ALL. THAT ALSO REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL.

SO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT ADDRESSING IT OR REQUESTING VALET RIGHT NOW, I THINK YOU CAN ASSUME THAT THERE WILL BE NO VALET AT THIS LOCATION.

YEAH. I DON'T WANT TO ASSUME THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE VALID. NO, I'M TELLING YOU, THERE WILL BE NONE. THEY THEY CANNOT HAVE VALET AND THE APARTMENT PARKING AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO PARTIES, I THINK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT, BECAUSE IT'S THE OUTDOOR DINING IS BASED ON THAT.

EVEN THOUGH THEY SEEM TO BE SURE THAT IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, I DON'T SEE AN AGREEMENT AT ALL FOR THAT SHARED.

SO IF I MAY MAYOR TO THE TO THE AGREEMENT, THE ONLY TIME THE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN PREPARED AT THE TIME OF THE MEETING IS WHEN THE CITY WAS A PARTY TO IT WITH THE CHURCH.

THAT'S IT. SO BECAUSE WE WERE A PARTY THEN, I WAS HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE NEGOTIATION OF SUCH.

HOWEVER, IF THE CITY WANTS TO ESSENTIALLY AUTHORIZE ME TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF NEGOTIATING THIS AGREEMENT BETWEEN TWO PARTIES THAT ARE NOT THE CITY, WHICH I MEAN, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DO THEN? IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PREPARED HERE. BUT AGAIN, TO THEIR BENEFIT, WHY WOULD THEY PREPARE AN AGREEMENT IF THEY HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE APPROVAL WHICH REQUIRES THE AGREEMENT? NO, BUT A LETTER SAYING THAT THEY WOULD AGREE TO AN AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE BEEN BENEFICIAL.

WELL, YOU HAVE THE YOU HAVE THE OWNER OF BOTH PROPERTIES REPRESENTATIVES HERE SAYING SO HE'S SPEAKING FOR BOTH PARTIES SAYING THAT THEY AGREE.

THE ATTORNEY WANTS TO SPEAK ON THE RECORD ON THAT.

IF I IF I MAY, AND I APPRECIATE IT, I'M SUPPOSED TO TAKE A BACK SEAT ON THIS ONE.

BUT THE ACTUAL CODE REQUIRES FOR THE OFF SITE PARKING AGREEMENT, IT REQUIRES THAT OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY.

[04:10:05]

SO THE CITY IS A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT. AND IF YOU RECALL, 7 OR 8 MONTHS AGO, WE DID NAPLES COMMUNITY CHURCH.

MR. MCCONNELL AND I WORKED OUT THE VERBIAGE OF THAT AGREEMENT, PER THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTION, AFTER THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED, AND IT IS NOW A RECORDED AGREEMENT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY.

SO THE CITY WILL, AS A MATTER OF FACT, BE REQUIRED TO BE A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT.

AND SO MR. MCCONNELL WILL BE DEFINITELY INVOLVED IN DRAFTING IT.

AND THE REASON WE'RE A PARTY TO IT ISN'T BECAUSE IT'S OUR OWN PROPERTY, BUT WE'RE A PARTY SO THAT THEY COULD NOT ON THEIR OWN EVER AMEND THAT AGREEMENT WITHOUT THE CITY'S INVOLVEMENT. SO AND IT'S A IT'S A TEMPLATE AGREEMENT.

I MEAN, WE HAVE MULTIPLE OF THESE AGREEMENTS APPROVED, YOU KNOW, FOR DIFFERENT SITUATIONS ACROSS THE CITY.

SO IT'S A A FAIRLY STANDARD. AND THEN MY LAST QUESTION, MR. MCCONNELL, IS DO WE STILL HAVE LITIGATION ON THIS, WHICH IS WHAT I ASKED BEFORE.

IT WAS VERY CONFUSING THAT WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD ON AN APPLICATION THAT WE'RE UNDER LITIGATION WITH.

SO THIS APPLICATION IS NOT THIS SPECIFIC APPLICATION IS NOT UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF ANY COURT.

PRIOR DENIALS. PRIOR DECISIONS MADE IN PRIOR LITIGATION THAT ARE TECHNICALLY BEING APPEALED ARE.

HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO YOUR CODE, IF THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO PROCESS THEIR APPLICATION, THERE IS NOTHING LEGALLY THAT I CAN DO TO PREVENT A PROPERTY OWNER FROM DOING THE SAME.

THANK YOU. VICE MAYOR. THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR.

I NEEDED ONE QUESTION TO BE CLEARED UP, AND THEN I HAVE SOMETHING THAT I JUST WANTED TO BRING TO EVERYBODY'S ATTENTION.

SO ON THE ON THE RESOLUTION AND, ERICA, DID YOU HAVE A PART IN DEVELOPING THIS RESOLUTION? YES. OKAY. THE SIXTH, WHEREAS TALKS ABOUT THE PAB, THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD, AND THEIR DECISION ON THE CONDITIONAL USE PETITION, AND THEY DENIED IT, AND THEY CITED THEIR DENIAL, FINDING THAT THE PARKING PROVIDED IS INSUFFICIENT.

COULD YOU? I KNOW YOU SPOKE TO IT, BUT COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT ONE MORE TIME CLEARLY? TELL US WHAT WAS INSUFFICIENT. I'M SORRY. MY COMPUTER IS APPARENTLY SHUTTING DOWN.

THEY ARE. THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD FOUND THAT THE PROVISION OF THE SEVEN SPACES OFF SITE.

AND THAT THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ACTUAL PHYSICAL PARKING SPACES TO SATISFY ON THE SITE FOR THE OUTDOOR DINING WAS INSUFFICIENT BECAUSE THERE'S SEVEN.

THE THEORY THERE IS THAT THERE'S 15 SPACES, AND THROUGH OBSERVATION SEVEN SEEMED TO BE CONSISTENTLY AVAILABLE, IS WHAT THE PETITIONER HAS STATED.

THE PLANNING ADVISORY BOARD IN YOUR IN THIS INTERPRETATION IS THAT, YEAH, THERE'S JUST NOT SEVEN DEDICATED.

IS THAT ACCURATE? I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY USED THOSE EXACT TERMS, BUT THEY JUST FOUND THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT THAT WAS PROVIDED TO THEM WAS INSUFFICIENT.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY IN SECTION 4634, THERE ARE STANDARDS FOR APPROVAL.

IN FACT, IN THIS RESOLUTION ON SECTION TWO, IT SAYS IF DENIED, THE DENIAL OF THIS NONCONFORMITY PETITION. SO NOT A CONDITIONAL USE, BUT A NONCONFORMITY.

AND I WAS TRYING TO READ SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE THAT TERM NONCONFORMITY APPEARED.

I COULDN'T FIND IT EXCEPT IN SECTION TWO THERE.

SO IS THAT ACCURATE? THIS IS A NONCONFORMITY PETITION.

NO, THE NONCONFORMITY IS THE BUILDING ITSELF.

THE NONCONFORMITY IS RELATED TO THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT HAS NO PARKING SPACES.

SO THE NONCONFORMITY WAS DETERMINED BY THE FINAL JUDGMENT FROM JUDGE BRODY.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING TODAY. BUT ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE A A COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH NO ON SITE PARKING.

OKAY. THEN USING THE TERM NONCONFORMITY IN THIS RESOLUTION, IS THIS ACCURATE? IS A IS A TYPO OR A SCRIVENER'S ERROR? THAT SHOULD SAY IF YOU DENY IT, IT WOULD BE DENYING THIS CONDITIONAL USE.

VERY GOOD. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

AND SO IF IF DENIED IT NEEDS TO BE PURSUANT TO SECTION 4634 D.

AND IN 34 4634 YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO TO F, WHICH IS ITEMS ONE THROUGH TEN.

NOW COUNSEL, THIS IS I'M BRINGING YOUR ATTENTION TO THIS.

[04:15:01]

BECAUSE IF IT'S THE WILL OF THIS COUNSEL TO DENY THIS PETITION, IN MY OPINION I'M NOT THE LAWYER, BUT IT SEEMS TO POINT US TO ITEMS ONE THROUGH TEN.

ONE OF THOSE, OR ALL OF THEM, OR SOME OF THEM HAVE TO BE THE BASIS FOR DENYING THIS PETITION.

IS THIS ACCURATE? YOU ARE 100% ACCURATE. AND IF I COULD JUST FOR A MINUTE, PLEASE.

SO THE WAY THE LAW IS SET UP FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IS THE BURDEN IS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, THE APPLICANT, TO PROVE THAT THEY HAVE SATISFIED THE CRITERIA IN YOUR CODE.

AND VICE MAYOR HAS CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THOSE CRITERIA F ONE THROUGH TEN.

IF THEY PROVE WITH COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT THEY SATISFY THIS.

AND YOU DO HAVE YOUR CITY EXPERT HERE STATING OTHER THINGS SHE'S PUTTING ON ON UNDER OATH ONTO THE RECORD.

THEN THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT TO DENY IT FOR WHAT YOU BELIEVE IS A CRITERIA THAT HAS NOT BEEN MET.

AND REMEMBER, ALL OF THIS IS BASED ON COMPETENT, SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED DURING THIS HEARING TODAY, WHETHER THAT BE TESTIMONY, PRESENTATIONS OR WRITTEN STATEMENTS.

GOOD. OKAY. SO BASED ON THAT AND MY HOPE IS THAT WE CAN FIND A WAY TO, TO MAKE THIS HAPPEN AND COMPLY WITH OUR CODE. MY CONCERNS WERE WITH ITEM ONE AND TWO ON 4634 F, ITEMS ONE AND TWO. AND THAT'S THE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES, WITH PARTICULAR REFERENCE TO AUTOMOTIVE AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT MEETS THE EXPECTATION FOR ME IN TERMS OF PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND CONVENIENCE.

NUMBER TWO, OFF STREET PARKING, WHERE REQUIRED OR REQUESTED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, SHALL BE ADEQUATE AND WELL DESIGNED AND RELATE WELL IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY, ACCESS AND THE LIKE TO THE USES INTENDED TO BE SERVICED.

SO FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT.

THANK YOU, MADAM MAYOR. THANK YOU. ANY FURTHER, KRAMER, WITH RESPECT TO OUR VICE MAYOR.

I HAVE A QUESTION. IF EITHER OF THOSE CASES WERE TRUE, IF IF, IN OUR PROFESSIONAL STAFF'S ESTIMATION, ANY OF THOSE REASONS TO DENY WERE CURRENTLY THE THE SITUATION, WOULD THIS HAVE COME TO US? IT WOULD COME TO YOU. WE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN THE FINDINGS THAT WE FOUND.

RIGHT. WE PROVIDED FINDINGS THAT THE CRITERIA HAD BEEN MET AND TO WHAT THE MAYOR WAS SAYING, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT, THE THINGS SHE WAS ASKING FOR IN ADVANCE.

WE'VE DONE MANY, MANY, MANY OF THESE. AND WE THAT'S WHY THERE'S CONDITIONS ATTACHED.

WE ATTACH THE CONDITIONS AND THEN THIS DOESN'T GO FORWARD UNTIL THE CONDITIONS ARE MET.

AND IT'S UP TO OUR STAFF AND OUR CODE ENFORCEMENT TO VERIFY THAT ALL THAT STUFF GOES RIGHT.

SO FOR THOSE REASONS AND. I MEAN, LEANING INTO OUR STAFF AND THEIR EXPERTISE, I DON'T SEE HOW WE DON'T APPROVE IT WITHOUT CREATING SOME MORE LITIGATION.

THANKS. CHRISTIAN.

SO WE'VE SPENT A LONG TIME TALKING ABOUT THIS, AND AND I THINK IT WAS INEVITABLE BECAUSE IT'S THIS HAS A LONG HISTORY, THIS OF THIS MATTER TIED WITH A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, AND WE REALLY HAD TO PEEL AWAY THE LAYERS OF THE ONION ON THIS TO GET TO THE CORE ISSUES. AND THERE ARE OTHER CONCERNS I HAVE ABOUT THE PROJECT THAT REALLY RELATE MORE TO THE ULTIMATE.

OPERATION OF THE BUILDING. AND YOU KNOW, IF MR. DOUGHTY WAS PLANNING ON OPENING HIS HIS, HIS HIGH END RESTAURANT NEXT MONTH, I'D BE FEELING PRETTY GOOD. BUT, YOU KNOW WE KNOW HE'S ONLY VERY RECENTLY REENTERED THE SCENE, AND BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY TODAY, SAID IT A LONG WAY TO GO TO GET THIS PROJECT TO A POINT WHERE IT WOULD BE

[04:20:02]

OPERATIONAL. THE OFF SITE PARKING IS HARDLY IDEAL.

BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE I THINK THE WE DID TELL THE PETITIONER AT THE PRIOR, AT A PRIOR HEARING THAT THEY HAD OTHER COURSES OF ACTION THEY COULD TAKE, INCLUDING FINDING OFF SITE PARKING AND ALSO DOING A PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS.

THEY'VE DONE BOTH OF THOSE THINGS. THE WE CAN EACH INTERPRET THE STANDARDS UNDER UNDER THE RELEVANT CODE 4634 F DIFFERENTLY, BUT IT'S IT'S HARD FOR ME TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE STANDARDS HAVEN'T BEEN MET.

AND. WE ALSO. AND NOTHING HAS BEEN SAID ABOUT THIS, BUT THE I'D LOVE TO SEE THIS, THIS BUILDING BE PUT BACK INTO USE. 19 YEARS, IT'S BEEN EMPTY, AND IT'S ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT HISTORIC STRUCTURES.

ONE OF THE I MEAN, I USE THE WORD HISTORIC. IT'S JUST A VERY IMPORTANT STRUCTURE.

AND TO HAVE IT BE IN, IN BENEFICIAL USE FOR THE COMMUNITY WOULD BE A VERY GOOD THING.

YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A REASON ALONE TO MOVE FORWARD ON THIS, BUT IT'S IT'S ANOTHER FACTOR.

BUT WHAT'S REALLY COMPELLING TO ME IS THAT I HAVE A HARD TIME COMING UP WITH SOMETHING THAT I FEEL IS VALID AND SUBSTANTIVE FOR FOR, FOR TURNING THIS DOWN, AND I'M NOT SURE IF I, IF WE DID WHAT WHAT WHAT THE WHAT THE MESSAGE IS TO THE PETITIONER IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY DO NEXT, IS IT ARE WE SAYING WE WANT TO DO OUR OWN PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS, OR THEY SHOULD GET ANOTHER PARKING NEEDS ANALYSIS DONE, THAT THEY SHOULD KEEP WORKING AND FINDING A BETTER OFF SITE PARKING LOCATION.

I'M NOT SURE WHAT WE'RE REALLY SAYING TO THEM. SO I THINK IT'S IT'S WITH ALL THE LIMITATIONS AND RESERVATIONS THAT THAT ARE WITH THIS, I THINK IT'S TIME TO MOVE ON. PARDON? YES. THE JUST A FEW THOUGHTS. FIRST AND FOREMOST THEY'VE THEY'VE MET ALL THE CRITERIA HERE.

THE VICE MAYOR HAD SOME LEGITIMATE THOUGHTS IN REFERENCE TO THE ONE AND TWO.

I DON'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE IS WHICH, BUT ABOUT THE PARKING LOT ITSELF.

BUT IN MY OPINION, THE CONDITIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THIS, IF THIS WERE TO BE APPROVED BY OUR STAFF, ADDRESSES THOSE CONCERNS. I BELIEVE THERE WAS ADDITIONAL LIGHTING WAS GOING TO BE ADDED, LIGHTING SYSTEM OF SOME SORT AND THEN MAYBE RESTRIPING I THOUGHT I HEARD THAT TOO.

DID I HEAR THAT, ERICA? OR IF NOT, I'M SURE WE CAN MAKE THAT A PART OF IT.

BUT RESTRIPING OF THE OF THE SPACES AND THE PETITIONER.

I'VE DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE PETITIONER'S AGENT. IF YOU WOULD LIKE, WE CAN INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITION. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THE SAFETY OF THE AREA IS BEING ADDRESSED BY OUR CONDITIONS.

THE, THE OTHER ONE WAS THE CONVENIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS AND SAFETY FOR PEDESTRIANS.

THEY'VE GOT A INTERSECTION THERE THAT THEY CAN USE THAT HAS CROSSWALKS AND, AND THEY CAN STOP THE LIGHT.

SO IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A SAFE INTERSECTION THERE THAT THAT'S BEING UTILIZED BY THE PEDESTRIANS AND THE.

AS TO WHETHER IT'S CONVENIENT OR NOT. MAN, ISN'T THAT VAGUE.

WHAT'S CONVENIENT TO. TO THE VICE MAYOR MAY NOT BE CONVENIENT TO ME.

SO, YOU KNOW, ONE MAN'S CONVENIENCE IS ANOTHER MAN'S BURDEN.

SO I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IT IS CONVENIENT. IT'S IT'S ABOUT 350FT AWAY.

SO IT'S EASY TO GET TO. WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE LIGHTING.

WE'RE GOING TO FIX THE STRIPING. THEY'VE MET THE, THE CODES NECESSARY IN ORDER TO DO THIS WITH THE OFF SITE PARKING.

AND FRANKLY, THEY DID IT AT, AT THIS COUNCIL'S DIRECTION AND IN A PRIOR MEETING SAYING, HEY, THERE ARE AVENUES FOR YOU TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM. GO USE THOSE AVENUES THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN OUR CODE. THEY WENT OUT AND DID IT, AND NOW WE'RE SAYING MAYBE NO, NOT GOOD ENOUGH. I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT GOOD ENOUGH, THEN MAYBE WE NEED TO CHANGE THE CODES.

MAYBE WE NEED TO MAKE AN OFF SITE PARKING 200FT INSTEAD OF 600FT.

I DON'T KNOW, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE HERE IS THAT THEY'VE MANAGED TO ACCOMPLISH THESE THESE OBJECTIVES AND GOALS.

AND. ALONG WITH RAISE COMMENT ABOUT THIS BUILDING, A HISTORIC BUILDING HERE IN NAPLES.

[04:25:03]

I COULDN'T AGREE MORE. I MEAN, IT'S IT'S IT'S A TRAVESTY ON OUR PART THAT WE CAN'T FIGURE OUT A WAY TO HAVE A FUNCTIONING OPERATION THERE THAT BENEFITS OUR COMMUNITY.

AND ONE OF THE OLDEST, IF NOT THE OLDEST BUILDING IN OUR IN IN THE CITY OF NAPLES.

SO I THINK THAT THAT WE NEED TO PROCEED ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER THROUGH THE, THROUGH THE CONDITIONS HERE. BUT LET'S LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND AND AND GET THIS, GET THIS APPROVED.

YEAH. I AM STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS, BUT WANT TO MAKE A CLARIFICATION THAT, YOU KNOW, STAFF DOES A REPORT. THERE'S A REASON IT COMES TO US.

AND IT'S SO THAT WE ARE EVALUATING STAFF'S REPORT, PAB REPORT TESTIMONY AND DRAWING OUR OWN CONCLUSIONS DRIVING BY THERE AND DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOT THESE CRITERIA WERE MET. SO I'M GLAD IT COMES FORWARD TO US.

YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO BE INDEPENDENT. OTHERWISE, IF WE ALWAYS AGREE WITH STAFF, IT SHOULDN'T COME TO US. BUT IT DOES.

SO HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK YOU KNOW, GIVEN THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE REQUIRING ON LIGHTING DIRECTIONS TO, TO HOW THEY CAN TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS PARKING AND THE NUMBER OF FEET AWAY FROM THIS I AM IN FAVOR OF OF ALLOWING THIS IF ALL OF THE CONDITIONS ARE MET AND IT'S CRYSTAL CLEAR WHERE PEOPLE CAN PARK.

THANK YOU.

APPROVAL FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. TODAY'S TESTIMONY ILLUSTRATES THAT AS WELL AS PROVIDING YOU THE RELEVANT APPLICATION MATERIALS ACCOMPANYING YOUR AGENDA TODAY, WHICH ILLUSTRATE HOW WE HAVE OBJECTIVELY FULFILLED THE REQUIREMENTS.

OF COURSE, ONE OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS TIED TO THAT OUTDOOR DINING REQUIRES THE SATISFACTION OF PARKING REQUIREMENTS AT A RATIO OF THREE PER 1000FT² IN FEBRUARY OF 2025. YOU ALL POINTED US TO THE VARIOUS STEPS TO ACHIEVE THAT PARKING RATIO, OR PARKING RATIO, THAT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN STAFF OR PATRONS.

A PARKING RATIO THAT DOES NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE DENSITY OF SEATING WITHIN THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THEREFORE WE DO FEEL THAT WE HAVE FULFILLED THOSE CRITERIA.

REGARDING THE DISTANCE AND DIMENSION FOR OFF SITE PARKING.

YOU'RE LEAVING PRIVATE LAND AND UTILIZING A PUBLIC ALLEYWAY, A PUBLIC SIDEWALK, AND A PUBLIC INTERSECTION IF THERE ARE SAFETY CONCERNS ASSOCIATED WITH TRANSITING PUBLIC PROPERTY. I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU BEGIN BY LOOKING AT THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT PUBLIC LAND.

THE ORDINANCE RELATIVE TO THE 600 FOOT DIMENSION IS QUITE SPECIFIC.

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE FOOTFALL DIMENSION, AND IF THAT IS THE PREFERENCE OF COUNCIL, THEN CHANGE THE CODE, BUT THE CODE POINTS TO A RELATIONSHIP DRAWN ON A STRAIGHT LINE BETWEEN ONE PIECE OF LAND AND ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND.

THE EXISTING 15 SPACES AT THE ART GALLERY HAVE BEEN ILLUSTRATED TO MAX OUT AT SEVEN, AS A DEMAND FOR THE PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH THE ART. SEVEN AS A DEMAND ASSOCIATED WITH THE PARKING FOR OUTDOOR DINING, LEAVING A SURPLUS OF ONE THE ADJOINING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD BOUGHT WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT HAD 15 PARKING SPACES ON IT.

IT'S SIMPLY GOING TO BE USED DIFFERENTLY. THE INTENSITY OF THOSE 15 SPACES HAS BEEN THERE ON SITE, AND WE INTEND, AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE EXHIBITS, TO LIGHT IT SAFELY.

WITH THAT BEING THE CASE, I WOULD LIKE TO CONCLUDE MY REMARKS.

BUT OUR ATTORNEY, MARK GRAFTON, WOULD LIKE TO OFFER A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE NEED TO PROVIDE AS PART OF TODAY'S CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. MARK GRAFTON, COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT.

I WILL BE BRIEF. I DO HAVE A STATEMENT ABOUT THE PENDING LITIGATION AND OUR INTENT TO DISMISS THAT LITIGATION IF

[04:30:02]

WE ARE SUCCESSFUL TODAY. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, FOR THE RECORD THERE'S TWO PENDING APPEALS WITH THE SIXTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL RELATING TO THE CITY COUNCIL'S DENIAL OF A 2023 OUTDOOR DINING APPLICATION.

IF THE PRESENT APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TODAY ARE APPROVED AND BECOME FINAL WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO COORDINATE THE PROPER DISMISSAL OF THOSE PENDING APPEALS. WHAT'S ALWAYS BEEN IMPORTANT TO OUR CLIENT IS THAT THEIR RIGHTS TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT, THE 76 SPACE PARKING CREDIT, REMAIN INTACT. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY DISAGREEMENT THERE.

AS IT RELATES TO CONDITION NUMBER SIX IN THE OUTDOOR DINING RESOLUTION, I BELIEVE THERE MAY BE THAT MAY BE A HOLDOVER. THAT DOESN'T QUITE MAKE SENSE IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.

AND I'M GOING TO READ IT INTO THE RECORD. AND I WOULD LIKE TO JUST CONFIRM THAT WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

SO THIS STATES AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THIS OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT IS DEPENDENT UPON APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2025, APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 20 5Q6 AS WELL AS THIS IS THE PART THAT GETS, I THINK, CONFUSING. THE BUILDING REMAINING IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN THE 76 PARKING SPACES WERE VESTED PURSUANT TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT DATED JUNE 26TH, 2018.

SO I THINK EVERYBODY RECOGNIZES THAT THE BUILDING CAN'T REMAIN IN THE SAME CONDITION IT'S GOING TO BE MADE MUCH NICER AND THERE'S GOING TO BE IMPROVEMENTS TO IT. SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THAT TERM BEING IN THE SAME CONDITION IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE KIND OF CONFUSING LATER ABOUT WHAT THE INTENT IS THERE.

SO MAYBE WE COULD JUST CLARIFY WHAT WE MEAN BY BEING IN THE SAME CONDITION.

IT'S ALMOST AS IF THESE TWO SHOULD HAVE BEEN SWITCHED FIVE AND SIX.

I WAS GOING TO. MAY I ASK MISS MARTIN A QUESTION BECAUSE I CAN'T I DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO GO UP THERE AND TALK TO HER.

SO I THINK WITH WITH CONDITION FIVE PRECEDING IT, I THINK WE CAN REMOVE THE SECOND PORTION OF NUMBER SIX.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEY SHOULD. YEAH. GO TOGETHER.

SO I THINK TO TO MR. GRAFTON'S POINT, I THINK MISS MARTIN IN OUR OFFICE, ALONG WITH OTHER ATTORNEYS, WERE VERY INVOLVED IN DRAFTING THIS. I THINK THIS WAS JUST CARRY OVER LANGUAGE, I I THINK WITH THE INTENT OF CONDITION FIVE BEING INCLUDED, WHICH IS REALLY IMPORTANT. I DON'T DISAGREE. NOR DO WE OBJECT TO THE REMOVAL OF THE SECOND PART OF NUMBER SIX.

SO THAT CONDITION WOULD END AT Q SIX. I HAVE TO GET TO THE RESOLUTION.

NO WORRIES. IT'S A IT'S 11 D. D AS IN DOG. CORRECT.

YEAH. AND IT'S ON PAGE THREE.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE MAYOR AFTER Q SIX COMMA, IT SAYS AS WELL AS THE BUILDING THIS IS CONDITION SIX AS WELL AS THE BUILDING REMAINING IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN.

ARE YOU WITH ME? OKAY. SO THE CONDITION SIX IS JUST MODIFIED IN STAFF, AND CITY ATTORNEY HAS NO OBJECTION TO JUST ENDING THE SENTENCE AS Q SIX PERIOD.

BECAUSE CONDITION FIVE ADDRESSES THE MAIN CONCERN, AND I THINK IT WAS JUST CARRY OVER LANGUAGE.

SO ANY MOTIONS TO APPROVE IF COUNCIL DECIDES OR MOTIONS AT ALL.

IF WE COULD INCLUDE THAT MODIFICATION IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. NEXT. PAGE 13.

RESOLUTION. VICE MAYOR. YEAH. SO FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY.

SO I'M NOW SPEAKING TO THE RESOLUTION, AND THIS IS ON ITEM 11.

D SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE RESOLUTION WITH ITEM 11 D AND PAGE THREE, ITEM SIX WHERE AND IT'S BEEN READ. AN EXPRESS CONDITION OF THIS OUTDOOR DINING PERMIT IS DEPENDENT UPON APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2025.

AND THAT WILL BE FILLED IN APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 20 5Q6 COMMA, AS WELL AS THE

[04:35:01]

BUILDING REMAINING IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN THE 76 PARKING SPACES WERE VESTED.

NOW AND THEN IT GOES ON PURSUANT TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT.

SO IF THE RECOMMENDATION IS TO END THAT AND STRIKE AND OMIT THE LANGUAGE AS WELL AS THE BUILDING REMAINING IN THE SAME CONDITION AS WHEN THE 76 PARKING SPACES WERE VESTED.

IF THAT'S REMOVED, WHAT IS WHAT ARE THE WHAT ARE THE THE GUIDELINES THAT KEEP THAT BUILDING IN THE SAME CONDITION, THE SAME HISTORICAL NATURE? WHAT? I MEAN, THERE'S A REASON THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THERE.

SO WHEN WE STRIP THAT OUT OF THERE, WHAT ARE THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES? SO IF WE COULD IF YOU COULD GO BACK A PAGE TO NUMBER TWO AND LOOK AT NUMBER FIVE.

YEAH. WHAT NUMBER SIX DOES IS ESSENTIALLY SAYS YOU CAN NEVER DEMOLISH ANYTHING IN THIS BUILDING.

AND THE REALITY IS, IS THEY HAVE EVERY RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT IN THEIR BUILDING WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WILL LOSE CERTAIN PARKING CREDITS IF THEY DO SO.

SO I DON'T THINK THE CITY SHOULD BE IN THE POSITION OF SAYING YOU CAN NEVER MODIFY YOUR BUILDING, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT THE END OF SIX SAYS. AND THE REASON WHY I'M OKAY FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT OF REMOVING THE REFERENCE TO THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE 76 PARKING CREDITS, IS BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION OF NUMBER FIVE, WHICH CLEARLY ARTICULATES THE 76, CLEARLY ARTICULATES THE FINAL JUDGMENT AND THE REFERENCE.

SO IT WAS IT WAS I DON'T WANT TO SAY CARRY OVER LANGUAGE, BUT CONDITION FIVE WAS THE LAST CONDITION THAT WAS DRAFTED.

AND I THINK WE JUST DIDN'T GO BACK TO SIX. AND AND THEY DID MODIFY.

I REMEMBER THERE WAS A POINT IN TIME WHERE THEY MODIFIED THE IN THE THERE WAS A DEMOLITION OF SOME AREA.

SO HAS THAT BEEN SETTLED BY THE COURTS. IS THAT IS THAT STILL OUTSTANDING OR IS THAT SETTLED? WELL, AS YOU HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY, THERE ARE STILL CURRENTLY TWO 60 APPEALS ON ISSUES THAT PERTAIN TO THE PARKING CREDITS. YES. BUT FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM HIM, AND ULTIMATELY, YOUR DECISION IS BASED ON THE CRITERIA, NOT BASED ON ANYTHING ELSE BUT THE CRITERIA. THOSE MAY BE RESOLVED.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT.

SO THEY'RE THEY MUST BE LAWSUITS BROUGHT BY THE PETITIONER.

IS THE CITY MAINTAINING THE POSITION THAT DEMOLITION DID OCCUR IN THE 76 CREDITS ARE AT RISK.

SO. AND IS PART OF THIS US SAYING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DROP THAT AS WELL.

SO FROM MY KNOWLEDGE AND AGAIN THESE ARE CASES THAT I INHERITED.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CITY HAS NEVER CONFIRMED THAT DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED.

OUR POSITION HAS SIMPLY BEEN IF DEMOLITION OCCURS THEN THIS.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS WE HAVE NEVER ACTUALLY CONFIRMED.

THE ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MORE NUANCED THAN THAT.

IT'S BEEN NOT TO GET INTO THE LITIGATION, BUT YEAH, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

AND MY UNDERSTANDING AND I WOULD HEAR FROM MISS MARTIN OR MR. GRAFTON, BUT I AGREE.

YOU AGREE? YEAH. OKAY. MAY I RESPOND BRIEFLY ON THE DEMOLITION? THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION ABOUT WHETHER DEMOLITION HAD OCCURRED, AND SO WE WANTED TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THAT.

NO DEMOLITION HAS OCCURRED. WE INVITED KARA MURPHY TO COME OUT AND TOUR THE BUILDING.

AND THAT WAS ACTUALLY ALL PART OF THE PRIOR PROCESS.

THERE'S NOTHING IN THE PENDING LITIGATION THAT RELATES TO DEMOLITION.

IT'S THE 2023 OUTDOOR DINING DENIAL. SO THERE'S THERE'S REALLY NO DEMOLITION.

THAT'S PART OF THIS. AWESOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

CAN I CAN I BRING UP SOMETHING ON THIS POINT THAT I THINK MIGHT BE ANOTHER WAY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE UNDERLYING CONCERNS THAT THE VICE MAYOR AND OTHERS MAY HAVE.

AND I MEANT TO BRING THIS UP EARLIER AS A SUGGESTION.

AND FORGOT TO. BUT CAN WE LOOKING AT MR. MCCONNELL NOW, MISS MARTIN AS WELL, CAN WE? AND SHOULD WE INCLUDE ANOTHER CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE PETITIONER TO ONCE THE IMPROVEMENTS, WHATEVER IMPROVEMENTS.

AND WE'RE TALKING NOW, I'M TALKING IN THE CONTEXT OF EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS AND LANDSCAPING ARE FINALIZED ON, ON ON THIS BUILDING. THE WHAT WHAT IS PROPOSED NOT COMPLETED THAT THEY NEED TO GO BACK TO DRB AGAIN AND HAVE DRB

[04:40:06]

REVIEW THIS. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, DRB LOOKED AT THIS WAY BACK IN 2010, WHICH IS AN ETERNITY AGO.

AND WOULD IT WOULD IT BE HELPFUL AND USEFUL TO HAVE DRB REVIEW WHAT NOW IS PROPOSED FOR THE BUILDING. THE DRB IS DEALING WITH EXTERIOR, NOT INTERIOR, BUT IT MAY BE ANOTHER WAY IN WHICH WE CAN PROVIDE. AND, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN PROVIDE THEIR, THEIR INPUT AND AND AND BLESS WHATEVER IS BEING PROPOSED.

AND I WOULD SUPPORT THAT IF THE PETITIONER WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THAT.

THANK YOU. ARE WE ASKING. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT PARKING RIGHT NOW AND I'M TRYING TO CONNECT THOSE DOTS.

WHY WOULD THEY WOULD AND IF WE ARE SUPPOSED TO OR CAN.

BUT I DON'T GET HOW THAT HAS TO DO WITH ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS.

WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT, MR. KRAMER. YEAH. AND AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKING, AND WE'RE ALSO TALKING ABOUT OUTDOOR DINING.

YEAH, BUT I DON'T CONNECT THE DOTS. I'M NOT SAYING I'M.

I'M JUST NOT. I DON'T SEE HOW THAT FITS WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'M NOT GETTING IT. YEAH. AGAIN. MARK GRAFTON FOR THE APPLICANT.

WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO GOING BACK AND GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK.

I THINK IT'S PROCEDURALLY IT'S A LITTLE BIT STRANGE GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THIS HEARING AND.

YEAH, AND ALSO THE FACT THAT WE, WE ALREADY DO HAVE A BUILDING PERMIT.

AND I THINK THAT BOARD USUALLY PRECEDES BUILDING PERMITS.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S SOME TECHNICAL THINGS THAT MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD. BUT I MEAN, WE DEFINITELY THE BUILDING PERMIT IS THERE'S NO TIME TIME AND TO TO THAT, YOU GOT THAT BUILDING PERMIT BACK IN 20 YEARS AGO? NO. SORRY. 2022. OH, JUST IN 2022. CORRECT. OKAY.

YEAH. SO THAT IT'S STILL ACTIVE. YEAH, YEAH. GOTCHA.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.

OKAY. I'LL JUST SAY I MY FOCUS IN ON THIS IS YES, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.

I DON'T SEE THE EXACT 600FT. I SEE 375. THAT'S.

I MEAN, AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. YOU HAVE TO GO BEHIND THE BUILDING.

YOU'RE GOING INTO A PASSIVE ALLEY. WHICH HAS BEEN NOTED THAT IT'S NOT UP TO SAFETY BY THE PETITIONER'S AGENT AND THAT IT'S AN ART GALLERY, WHICH IS NOT AS A USE THAT IS WILL BE AS INTENSE AS A PARKING LOT FOR A RESTAURANT THAT WILL BE OPERATED ALL DAY FOR LUNCH AND FOR DINNER, ESPECIALLY WITH DINNER. I KNOW THE RESIDENTIAL BUTTING UP AGAINST THE COMMERCIAL, AND IT SAYS CLEARLY THAT AND I DISAGREE WITH THIS, THAT THE THE APPLICATION DIRECTLY ADDRESSES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO BALANCE REDEVELOPMENT AND PARKING ISSUES WITHIN THE CHARACTER AND DEVELOPMENT CITYWIDE.

IT IT DEFINITELY IS ENCROACHING ON THE NEIGHBORS.

AND IT CLEARLY SAYS THERE WILL BE NO NEW NUISANCE OR HAZARD FEATURES IN THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, BUT WE ARE GOING TO BE INSTALLING MORE LIGHTING.

THAT WILL POTENTIALLY BE A NUISANCE FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ABUTTING THIS RESIDENTIAL AREA.

I, I'D LIKE TO FIND THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO MAKE THIS WORK.

I JUST I DON'T SEE THAT IN LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL IMPACT AND IT SAYS THAT THE PROPERTIES WITHIN 300FT OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, I MEAN. THAT'S 300FT FROM THE BUILDING OR FROM THE END OF THE LOT TO THE END OF THEIR LOT.

YEAH. ANY PROPERTY LINE TO PROPERTY LINE IN ANY DIRECTION.

SO AGAIN I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT YOU FOUND SOME TYPE OF PARKING AFTER 20 YEARS.

I JUST FOR THOSE REASONS I THINK IT'S IMPACTING FROM THE COMP COMP PLAN.

FROM MILD USE TO INTENSE USE. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER KRAMER.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T BELIEVE THE PETITIONER SAID THAT WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION. WHAT HE SAID WAS IF THERE WAS A DANGEROUS CONDITION THAT EXISTS, THAT'S PUBLIC PROPERTY AND IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO FIX THAT. THAT'S WHAT HE SAID.

[04:45:01]

AND THEN HAVING SAID THAT THAT'S EVERYBODY'S BEEN NOTIFIED.

THERE'S BEEN NOBODY FUSSING. AND THIS HAS GONE ON A LONG, LONG TIME.

AND SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 11 C A RESOLUTION DETERMINING CONDITIONAL USE PETITION 25.

C U6 WITH ALL OF THE. SAME CONDITIONS IN THE RESOLUTION AND THE THE TWEAK WAS THE NEXT ONE.

OKAY. OH, THERE'S THE NEXT ONE. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER SECOND.

I HAVE A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON. MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL.

COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. VICE MAYOR.

HUTCHISON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER. YES. MAYOR. HEITMANN.

NO. BUT IT PASSES 5 TO 2. NEXT RESOLUTION. YOU NEED TO READ THE RESOLUTION

[11.D) A Resolution Determining Outdoor Dining Petition 25-OD18 Pursuant to Section 56-126 of the Code of Ordinances to Allow Fifteen (15) Tables and Seventy-Six (76) Chairs on Private Property for a New Restaurant in the Olde Naples Building Within the Third Street Commercial Area Special Overlay District on the Property Owned by Olde Naples Building, LLC, a Florida Limited Liability Company, Located at 1148 3rd Street South, More Fully Described Herein; Providing Findings and Conditions; and Providing an Effective Date (Supplement 1/Updated Item).]

SO WE'RE CLEAR ON. I DID READ THEM BOTH TO OPEN THIS MATTER.

YES. BUT THE ONE PARTICULAR WE'RE VOTING ON. SURE, I CAN READ IT.

RESOLUTION DETERMINING OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 2501 EIGHT PURSUANT TO SECTION 56 126 OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES TO ALLOW 15 TABLES AND 76 CHAIRS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR A NEW RESTAURANT IN THE OLDE NAPLES BUILDING WITHIN THE THIRD STREET COMMERCIAL AREA.

SPECIAL OVERLAY DISTRICT ON THE PROPERTY OWNED BY OLDE NAPLES BUILDING, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY LOCATED AT ONE 148 THIRD STREET SOUTH.

MORE FULLY DESCRIBED HERE IN AND PROVIDING FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

THANK YOU. COUNSEL. HAVE A MOTION. I'D LIKE TO.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 11 D A RESOLUTION DETERMINING OUTDOOR DINING PETITION 25 OD 18, WITH THE EDIT TO THE SCRIVENER'S ERROR THAT WAS DESCRIBED WITH THE EDIT TO CONDITION SIX AND WITH THE EDIT TO CONDITION SIX.

I'LL DO THE EASIER PART AND SECOND THAT. THANK YOU.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER CRAMER AND A SECOND BY COUNCIL MEMBER BARTON.

MADAM CLERK, PLEASE PULL THE COUNCIL. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PENMAN. YES. VICE MAYOR. HUTCHINSON. NO. COUNCIL MEMBER.

PETRANOFF. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. BARTON. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER.

CHRISMAN. YES. COUNCIL MEMBER. CRAMER. YES. MAYOR.

NO. SO IT PASSES 5 TO 2. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

MERRY CHRISTMAS. MERRY CHRISTMAS. PUT SOMETHING NICE IN THERE. YES, IT WILL BE.

OKAY. THAT CONCLUDES ITEM ITEMS 11 C AND 11 D, TAKING US TO NEW BUSINESS.

WELL, ALREADY 1113 A WAS ALREADY ADDRESSED AS CONTINUED.

WE ADDRESSED 13 B TIMES CERTAIN GOING TO ITEM 13 C MAY I?

[13.C) A Resolution Approving a Contractor’s Services Agreement between the City of Naples and Sam Galloway Ford, Inc., a Florida Corporation, for Fleet Vehicle Purchases, Repairs and Parts, in the Amount Not-To-Exceed $7,500,000 for a Three-Year Period Commencing December 10, 2025 and ending September 30, 2028, with the Option to Renew for two Additional One-Year Periods; Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Contractor’s Services Agreement; and Providing an Effective Date.]

YES. MR. MCCONNELL. A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF NAPLES AND SAM GALLOWAY.

FORD INC., A FLORIDA CORPORATION FOR FLEET VEHICLE PURCHASES, REPAIRS AND PARTS IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 7.5 OR 7,500,000 FOR A THREE YEAR PERIOD COMMENCING DECEMBER 10TH, 2025 AND ENDING SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2028, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE YEAR PERIODS.

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE CONTRACTOR SERVICES AGREEMENT AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. THANK YOU, MR. YOUNG. YES. THANK YOU MAYOR. SO THIS AGREEMENT IS FOR THE ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES NOW IN ORDER TO.

THIS IS NOT ON CONSENT BECAUSE I THINK THIS ANYTIME YOU'RE HAVING A PURCHASE OF THIS MAGNITUDE AND THERE'S SOME HISTORY BEHIND IT, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WAS PUT AND I HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT TO YOU.

SO GIVING YOU A LITTLE HISTORY AND BACKGROUND OVER THE LAST, I'M GOING TO SAY PROBABLY 20 YEARS, BUT CERTAINLY DURING MY TIME HERE IN THE LAST TEN YEARS, WE'VE PIGGYBACKED COLLIER COUNTY'S CONTRACT ON THE ACQUISITION OF VEHICLES AND CORRESPONDING MAINTENANCE WITH TAMIAMI FORD. SO FAST FORWARD AND THIS PAST SUMMER, EARLY SPRING, MAYBE THEY WENT OUT TO BID ON THEIR PURCHASE OF VEHICLES.

AND WHEN THEY WHEN THEIR BIDS CAME IN SAM GALLOWAY FORD CAME IN SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER AND WAS SCORED AS SUCH. SO WE WERE FACED WITH THE PREDICAMENT OF ARE WE GOING TO PIGGYBACK THAT OUTRIGHT OR SHOULD WE MAKE ANOTHER DECISION AND TO YOU KNOW,

[04:50:03]

KEVIN SWISHER AND BEN COPELAND'S CREDIT, THEY SAID, LOOK, THIS IS A LOCAL PROVIDER.

THERE'S A CONVENIENCE ASPECT TO THIS. MAYBE THERE WAS AN ANOMALY WITH IT.

WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER, SHOULD WE GO OUT AND MAKE SURE WE CAN'T GET A BETTER DEAL THAN WHAT THEY GAVE THE COUNTY? SO WE WENT THE EXTRA STEP. FELIX AND HIS STAFF AND BEN, AND THEY DRAFTED.

AND KEVIN, THEY DRAFTED THE RFP TO GO OUT FOR BOTH VEHICLE ACQUISITION AND CONTINUED REPAIRS.

SO WHERE WE WERE AT THAT POINT. SO THAT'S BEING WORKED ON.