The application for the parklet, submitted by the restaurant Dear Mo Mod, had initially been modified to meet city ordinances. These modifications included a design aimed at minimizing noise and enclosing three sides of the parklet. However, concerns were raised by council members and residents alike regarding the potential for increased noise and disruption, as well as the restaurant’s compliance with its existing space. The debate extended to the adequacy of the notification process, with the Corporation Council suggesting a review of the impact of non-certified mail on potential appeal filers and the timeline for applications.

During the meeting, residents took the opportunity to express their concerns during the public comments section. They highlighted the potential for sidewalk obstruction, navigation difficulties around the area, increased noise levels, impact on property values, and a lack of transparency in the notification process. Specific worries included the strain on public safety personnel, increased foot traffic, and the effect of noise pollution on young children’s sleep. Residents also questioned the reduction of parking spaces on Garden Street and the need for security measures for the proposed parklet.

In response to the public comments, council members discussed the criteria for parklet approval and acknowledged the concerns raised. They sought clarity on the fate of existing tables and chairs on the sidewalk in front of the establishment, should the parklet have been approved. The council members also examined the dimensions of the proposed parklet and the criteria used for the approval process.

The issue of parklets and streetery applications themselves was a significant topic of debate. Council members discussed the legal adequacy of notifications and the impact of parklets on specific blocks, particularly the narrowness of First Street and its potential impact on pedestrian and vehicle traffic. While there was a general support for parklets, there was concern about the suitability of this particular location.

After a discussion, the motion to deny the approval of the parklet application was put forward based on the failure to provide adequate notice. The motion passed with a majority vote.