Naples City Council shoots down two outdoor dining petitions for different reasons

During another marathon meeting, Naples City Council unanimously shot down two petitions for outdoor dining, to the disappointment of the restaurant and property owners.

One request related to a historic building that's converting to a restaurant. The other involved a popular eatery hoping to expand.

City Council denied both Wednesday, hours apart.

The applications aren't connected in any way, but both sparked concerns about insufficient parking to support the outdoor seating, and code compliance.

First, Council denied the expansion of outdoor dining at Jimmy P's Charred restaurant off U.S. 41, in the Moorings Plaza – across the street from the Coastland Center mall.

Hours later, it rejected outdoor dining at the historic Olde Naples Building, off Third Street South, downtown.

Traffic, safety concerns thwart expansion plans for Jimmy P's

Jimmy P's sought to add nine outdoor tables with 26 seats.

Councilors expressed concerns about traffic and safety at the already-crowded shopping center and already-busy steakhouse.

The full-service restaurant opened in 2015, as a complement to the busy deli and butcher shop next door, owned by the same family. Open for lunch and dinner, the eatery replaced Mama Mia's, which had operated in that spot for 40 years.

In 2010, city staff administratively approved outdoor dining on private property for the butcher shop and deli, with ease. The request included three tables and six seats in an area less than 100 square feet, so it didn't require more parking.

The restaurant owners – the Pepper family – wanted to add another 320 square feet of outdoor dining.

Moorings Plaza didn't have enough on-site parking for the additional seating. Based on city code, it would have needed 73 spaces, with only 63 available in the lot.

The ask for more seats included a companion request to approve a shared parking plan for the plaza and a neighboring commercial building, which are under the same ownership. The plan provided a total of 93 spaces for all of the users across properties – nine more than required by code.

The proposal included 10 new spaces on U.S. 41, leased from the Florida Department of Transportation, adjacent to the shopping center.

City Council turned down the required conditional use for more parking, with a near unanimous vote. A majority of councilors felt the shared plan might do more harm than good, causing more chaos and confusion for customers and other businesses at the plaza.

"It doesn't work. When people want to come to a location, they want to come to the location," said Vice Mayor Mike McCabe.

He moved to disapprove both petitions.

Difficult, but necessary decisions?

Councilman Ray Christman, who voted against both requests, said he visited and shopped at Moorings Plaza often. At times, he said, it's been so busy that he's driven away.

"I don't stop," he said. "I just leave. And that's under existing conditions."

He added that he just couldn't visualize more seating outside at the location.

"Why anybody would ever want to sit there is beyond me," Christman commented. "It makes no sense."

While he congratulated Jimmy P's owners for their success, he said it's "eating up" the parking lot, leaving other tenants and their customers frustrated. He suggested it wouldn't be fair to approve the requests, to accommodate one business.

After the back-to-back decisions, Mayor Teresa Heitmann described them as difficult, but necessary for Council.

"Our responsibility is safety and making sure that there is enough parking for what's already there," she remarked.

During the hearing, Naples attorney Francesca Passidomo, who represented Jimmy P's and its owners in the companion petitions, said she felt her clients were being penalized for being successful, and the negative comments about the "chaos" they've created at the plaza seemed to be "misplaced."

She insisted the shared parking plan would help, not hurt the situation for everyone.

"There is a supply, demand issue," she argued. "This is to provide more parking."

No residents, or property or business owners, objected to the petitions.

City staff found the standards for more outdoor dining had been met, with the inclusion of a shared parking plan.

Council rejects outdoor seating at historic building

At the Olde Naples Building, a restaurateur and the property owners sought approval for 17 outdoor tables, with 76 seats.

The building, one of the oldest in the city, is under renovation.

The city issued a building permit last August to convert the property from a grocery store to a restaurant and kitchen after a 25-month review process.

Constructed in 1921, the building has no parking of its own, but the city's former planning director Robin Singer, granted parking credits for 76 spaces to the owners in September 2011. That's all of the spaces city code requires for a restaurant to operate on the property.

The administrative decision about parking triggered a yearslong legal dispute.

Neapolitan Enterprises — a competing property owner and landlord on Third Street — filed a lawsuit. The company and its owner Joan Tobin, whose family has been involved in the development of Third Street since the 1950s, wanted to ensure there was "sufficient parking to support all businesses there," according to the suit.

In 2018, a Collier Circuit judge sided with the city of Naples, however.

The ruling stated the building should be considered a "lawful nonconformity" for purposes of future construction, improvements or operation of any project or business.

Naples attorney John Passidomo detailed the long history of the owners' attempts to redevelop the property during the City Council meeting. The building is owned by the Camalier family, who have been Naples residents since 1964.

The building's last tenant, Fantozzi's grocery store, closed in 2006.

The petitioners wanted to reassign 14 of the 76 spots to 4,630 square feet of outdoor dining. With the addition of the outdoor dining, they planned to reduce the indoor dining from 7,158 to 6,080 square feet.

Petitioners' attorney argued parking credits could be reallocated

In his arguments to Council, Passidomo said the request should be approved by right, based on Singer's determination, upheld by a judge. He said the determination applied to the entire property, not just the structure itself, and that the parking deficit could be redistributed and applied partially to outdoor dining.

"There is no limitation to that effect," Passidomo insisted.

He contended the city's issuance of a permit acknowledged that there's an ability to adjust the uses, and the allocation of parking credits toward those uses on the property.

"Nothing has changed with the parking," he said.

He pointed out that city code doesn't require outdoor parking to be parked at the same level as indoor parking.

City councilors struggled over the request. Especially with the fact that the building has no parking of its own, and the owners don't pay for parking to provide it elsewhere.

"That needs to be made clear to everyone," said Councilman Ray Christman. "Not just hidden in the background."

He acknowledged it's an unusual property, but pointed out that the proposal would substantially increase the allowable square footage for dining by more than 40%, to more than 10,000 square feet, inside and out.

Further, Christman raised the issue of fairness, if the petitioners aren't required to play by the same rules as others who have obtained or sought approval for outdoor dining in the past.

"I have a lot of concerns about this proposal, and it's conformity with our code," he said.

In reaction, Passidomo said when it comes to parking for outdoor dining, City Council has made plenty of other exceptions, which is allowed under code. He pointed out that Neapolitan Enterprises has an application in process that would provide no parking for a larger amount of outdoor dining at one of its properties.

"Let me tell you a dirty little secret. Nobody on Third Street is parking their outdoor dining. Nobody," Passidomo said.

City staff found the petition met the standard criteria for approval, with the exclusion of a parking requirement. Planning Director Erica Martin said they didn't consider the legal implications of the judge's ruling on the parking credits in their review of the application.

Petition faced opposition from neighbors

Several neighboring businesses and property owners opposed the petition for outdoor dining without any parking.

Naples attorney Stephen Thompson, who represents Neapolitan Enterprises, said his clients would be hurt by it. He complained that the property owners hadn't gone through the proper review and approval process for outdoor dining, as a new use, which would have been more rigorous.

"Just keep it within the channel markers," he said.

He said the applicants should have sought a conditional use or variance to put the parking for outdoor dining someplace else, such as on neighboring property, if they wanted to add a new use.

He described the path taken for approval as a "short-cut."

He accused Passidomo of "carefully coloring" his arguments in favor of his clients, with a petition that goes outside the lines of the city code.

"We are being asked to look at the emperor's body, without his clothes," Thompson said.

The judge's decision had nothing to do with outdoor dining, which wasn't before the court, he argued.

"This petition is an overreach and is exactly what this Council was elected to stop," Thompson said.

Michael Smith, director of operations for D'Amico & Partners, operators of Campiello and The Continental on Third Street South, said he was excited to finally see movement on the restoration of the historic building.

However, he said, the request for more than 10,000 square feet of dining, with no real parking, took him by surprise. It would be the largest restaurant on the street.

He argued the allocated spaces should be for the inside only, questioning where all the employees and customers were supposed to park, as well as how garbage, grease removal and deliveries would be handled, for such a large establishment.

D'Amico's owners feared it would only lead to more problems, with more customers parking in alleyways, and along residential streets.

"The public parking virtually is unavailable in season," Smith said. "And as a company, we've had to help pay for private parking, valet services, to ensure our customers can park in high season."

He asked for an "equal playing field."

Council questioned parking rights for outdoor dining

Councilman Terry Hutchison said the petition had to be denied based on his understanding of (former planner) Singer's determination letter. The letter stated the "nonconformity couldn't be transferred from one part of the building to another," which he concluded didn't allow any of the parking credits to be reassigned to outdoor dining – something he couldn't "go past."

He also pointed out that the property owners have demolished part of the mezzanine as part of the building's remodeling, to improve the design, calling into question whether they're still entitled to the parking exception at all. The determination letter stated that "should any part of the building be voluntarily demolished, it cannot be rebuilt without the required parking."

In defense of his clients, Passidomo said nothing had or would be rebuilt, with the footprint remaining the same.

Vice Mayor McCabe described the petition as a "strange one," and one he couldn't support. He agreed with Hutchison's points, saying the creativity of the math used for the application seemed "kind of astounding."

"I believe the laws of math have been suspended," he said.

He questioned whether the building was even constructed in 1921, suggesting it could have actually been built a few years later, after the city incorporated, which means it would have been subject to parking regulations – and not a nonconformity.

He commented that he'd love to see outdoor dining on the site, but not without parking. Even without it, he expects the restaurant to be a great addition to the city.

"I love old stuff. I love history. So, I think that this is going to be wonderful," McCabe said.

Hutchison made the motion to deny the petition. It was seconded by Christman.

"After the vote, Chris Camalier, one of the buildings owners, said the family was "deeply disappointed" by Council's decision.

"We are, however, dedicated to finding an economically sustainable way to continue our 17-year fight to restore the Olde Naples Building as Naples’ most precious historic commercial resource," he said.

NCR (Next Cool Restaurant) Ventures, an Ohio-based restaurant group, leased the building with the expectation of having outdoor dining. Founded by Rick Doody, the group has six concepts including the Cedar Creek Grille, 17 River Grille and Lindey's Lakehouse restaurants.

Rick and his brother, Chris, started the Bravo Brio Restaurant Group in 1992 and sold it for about $100 million in 2018.

This article originally appeared on Naples Daily News: Naples rejects two outdoor dining proposals at marathon meeting