Archive | Key Issues RSS feed for this section

Tonight’s meeting cancelled.

25 Jun

VPC had to cancel tonight’s meeting, due to an emergency. Ericka apologizes for the inconvenience, and plans to offer re-schedule dates tomorrow.

Thank you for understanding, and we hope you can attend the re-scheduled meeting.

Advertisements

Quarterly neighborhood meeting on June 25th – Join us!

21 Jun

Volunteer Park Café is holding the second of eight quarterly neighborhood meetings:

  •  Monday, June 25th, 2012. 6PM
  • At VPC –  1501 17th Ave. E., Seattle, 98112.

The meetings are required as part of the City’s 2011 approval of VPC’s restaurant permit:

The goal of the meeting is to discuss relations between the parties or other neighborhood businesses. All interested neighbors are invited to attend.

The first meeting, held in February, was well attended and went smoothly. You can read more about the conditions and the use granted to VPC here.

DPD publishes final decision

1 Sep

On September 1, 2011, Seattle’s Department of Planning and Development (DPD) issued conditional approval for the first floor of the building VPC rents to legalize as a restaurant.

The remainder of the property (the backyard, the building’s second floor) maintain their residential zoning.

You can read more here, including the conditions that VPC must uphold to keep its restaurant zoning.

Volunteer Park Neighbors are very pleased with the City’s decision. We thank everyone for their support and friendship during a difficult time.

DPD releases draft of VPC permit

29 Apr

CHS today published the draft of the conditions The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is considering in response to VPC’s application to change the non-conforming use.

The conditions are being imposed by the City.

Every resident has exactly the same power: to make our needs known to DPD through the public process. Every resident was invited to submit letters, to attend the public meeting, and to continue discussions with DPD as they saw fit. As a result of everyone’s input, DPD is making its decision.

  • DPD allowed VPC to operate throughout the entirety of the decision-making process.
  • DPD was within their rights to shut it down. They did not.
  • VP Neighbors never pressed them to.
  • The neighborhood has never had to live without VPC and never has to.

At the public meeting, Ericka stated more than once that she accepts the conditions laid out by the City.

  • She said she will stay profitable under these conditions and that she had no intention to close.
  • She is willing to work with the neighborhood to address our concerns.
  • We are grateful to her for the opportunity to move forward.

Those who wish to support the cafe’s clear efforts to make this right need to follow Ericka’s example.

If those who do make themselves know to us — through this blog, our blog, or in person — we will thank you, as well.

Public Meeting Redux

25 Apr

This evening, an open public meeting took place at Stevens Elementary School to discuss Volunteer Park Café’s application to change the land-use of the space it rents (the first floor and one of the second floor residential units of 1501 17th Ave. E) from ‘grocery’ (and in the case of the upstairs, ‘residential’) to ‘restaurant.’

The meeting was well attended and remarkably civil. We thank everyone who attended for sharing their views concisely and with respect. We hope neighbors can continue the discussion in the same successful vein.

The meeting began with a brief recap of the situation by Scott Kemp, the planner from The Department of Planning & Development (DPD) assigned to this case. After Mr. Kemp spoke, representatives from VPC and VP Neighbors spoke, primarily reaffirming our commitment to working together and in conjunction with DPD. Mr. Kemp then opened the meeting for comments.

By and large, Mr. Kemp simply allowed residents to speak. Occasionally, he would step in to explain points of law or to clarify a question about the process required to change one non-conforming use to another.

A specific point addressed by Mr. Kemp seemed to clarify greatly the issue of the “agreement.” In effect here are two “agreements”:

  1. The private agreement currently in process between three entities: the building’s owner, the resident who filed the initial complaint with DPD, and VPC itself; and
  2. The public decision by DPD regarding the request for the change of nonconforming use.

Mr. Kempt clarified that the public decision is just that: a matter of public record, available to any resident who requests it. The private agreement is between the parties involved.

Without giving a date or time frame, Mr. Kemp stated that he would soon announce  the DPD’s decision regarding the land-use change.

We would like to acknowledge that we heard a number of residents register concern that they did not feel invited into VP Neighbors.

  • We invite any resident to contact us with suggestions as to how we can address your concerns.
  • Please contact individual members of VPN or through the contact information listed on this site.

In closing, we would like to reiterate our message from last night. While the currently permitted use of the building is as a grocery, Volunteer Park Neighbors has always stated the current best use can be as a restaurant with limits that make sense for our residential neighborhood.

Members of VPN remain committed to working with Volunteer Park Café towards an agreement that would allow VPN to support VPC’s restaurant permit application, while also protecting the character of our neighborhood now, and in the future.


44.3% oppose VPC’s request to change land-use to restaurant; also oppose patio.

18 Apr

From Sept. 30th through Oct. 27th, 2010, The Department of Planning & Development (DPD) held a public comment period in response to VPC’s application to change their land-use (currently ‘grocery’) to allow for a restaurant. During this period, we canvassed for neighborhood sentiment. 

  • We found that 44.3% of the residents we were able to assess opposed VPC’s request.
  • This same 44.3% stated an objection to the use of VPC’s back patio for commercial purposes.

Our canvassing was separate from the DPD’s comment period. Many residents took part in both.

Let us be the first to say that the results knocked us backward.

From the get-go, the media portrayed us as a single, cranky neighbor who was trying to shut down VPC. Later, VPC’s Web page called us “a small (but vocal!!) minority.” Though VPC had dropped the “trying to shut down,” that was the message which continued to wrongly—and painfully—define the debate.

Going door-to-door, we felt opinion shifting.

  • We did not, however, expect to find that the largest single opinion would align with ours.
  • We recognize that our results reveal a surprising sea change in neighborhood opinion.

Which is not to say that the restaurant finds itself without support. A significant proportion of those whose position we were able to assess—45.6%—favored VPC’s land-use change, compared to 44.3% against.

VPC’s support came in degrees:

  • 12% favored ‘restaurant’ change and patio use; and
  • 33.6% favored ‘restaurant’ but not patio, or said they did not yet understand enough about the patio use to state an opinion.

Finally, 10.1% remained undecided about the issue as a whole.

Primary objection is to patio use

Concern over VPC’s patio expansion originally lead the group now known as VP Neighbors to file a complaint with DPD. In 2010, the restaurant had been operating outside their legal zoning for more than three years. (In May, 2010, DPD found VPC in violation.)

We have always been willing to live with and to enjoy a legally compliant 40-seat restaurant—despite impacts involving noise, traffic, parking, cooking odors, garbage overflows and more.

We are not willing to live with the possibility of 30 or  more seats on a patio or use of the second floor.

  • The ensuing impacts on our lives and on our families would be too great.
  • For this reason, we ask VPC and the property owner to sign a legal document that would clearly limit commercial use to the first floor of the building.
  • If they can do so, we can support the legalization of a reasonably sized restaurant from which the whole community can benefit forever.

Beyond any concern we have about VPC, we are concerned that any future owner or renter could use the patio without permitting. Maybe the City would do some-thing, maybe not. The neighbors don’t want to find out.

DPD receives Parking Study requested in November.

15 Mar

The Department of Planning & Development (DPD) is reviewing a Parking Studyit requested from VPC in mid-November, 2010. The Study was dated Feb. 14, 2011, but not provided to DPD until March 15, 2011.

DPD stated it needed such a Study to compare parking impacts of the last legal use of the first floor (a small grocery that existed until about 2002) with that of the proposed use (the restaurant now operating illegally).

  • VPC’s study doesn’t attempt to compare the actual parking demand of VPC to that of the defunct grocery. Instead, the Study cites generic numbers from a guide used by parking planners.
  • This guide states that, in an urban setting, a small grocery or convenience store generates about half the parking demand of a small restaurant. This fact alone argues against legalization of restaurant use for the building.
  • The accuracy of the Study has been affected by several other factors, including that it took place in winter, when weather rarely, if ever, permitted enjoyment of 16 sidewalk seats routinely used by the restaurant in warmer months.

This Study is important to DPD’s decision regarding the legalization of Volunteer Park Café:

  • City zoning laws are supposed to protect homeowners against a big increase in the impacts caused by a business “grandfathered” into a residential neighborhood.

You can read the most recent correction notice here. The document is public record.

VPC’s Application: The Back Yard – The Heart of the Conflict

26 Jan

VPC is asking neighbors to live this close to its impacts:

View of  patio at lunch, taken from neighbor’s kitchen.

As a reminder, VPC did not open in a commercial or mixed-use neighborhood. We live in a residential neighborhood. VPC rented a ‘grocery’ space in a quiet, residential neighborhood, named itself a cafe, and proceeded to operate an illegal restaurant. For this reason, DPD found VPC in violation and required VPC to submit the Administrative Conditional Use Application.

2. VPC’s application states that “No food or beverage service is proposed for the outdoor area behind the restaurant.”

  • Setting aside for the moment that the not-proposed service has taken place:
  • VPC’s Improving Customer Relations page states, “Our permit application with the city does not include out-door seating in the garden …. Yes, we may have stated we were considering it in past press statements, but mere grousing doesn’t contravene (sic) the actual facts presented in our permit application to the city.”
  • As noted by Capitol Hill blog, “The application doesn’t say people can’t take their food outside. Nor does the application document mention limits on special events that might fill the area on a regular basis. It’s the kind of thing that could well be within a permitted (restaurant’s) rights. It could also drive nearby neighbors nuts.”
  • In their application, VPC states the patio will “provide an outdoor area for the single family residence located above the restaurant, and other activities allowed in single family zones by the Seattle Municipal Code.”
  • Over the summer, VPC illegally used the patio for service (above) and for a special event (below) they claim was “allowed in single family zones by the Seattle Municipal Code.” It drove us nuts:

Second view of  patio from neighbor’s kitchen.
And the party is just getting started:


  • Party in full swing. We will not endure this level of impact.

 

3. VPC has never stated conclusively that they will not apply for patio use in the future. That VPC claims they “do not plan” patio service is simply not believable.

Bricked, tented, and ready for events VPC states are 'allowed in single family zones.'

Bricked and tented; patio service should not be 'allowed in single family zones.'

 

  • VPC did not build a brick patio in order to use it primarily for gardening.
  • VPC never had the legal status to operate restaurant, yet has done so since opening in 2007.
  • VPC has not yet managed its current size in manner respectful to neighbors, yet insists it will operate fine on a larger scale.

Next: Building Permit CompliancePlease subscribe to our blog.

VPC’s Application: Errors in Written Submission

23 Dec

Our comments about basic errors in VPC’s Administrative Conditional Use application are framed by the following two elements of the code:

  • “The proposed new use must be no more detrimental to properties in the zone and vicinity than the existing use.” {Note: existing use is: ‘nonconforming: grocery.’}
  • If the new use is permitted, the Director may require mitigation measures, including but not limited to landscaping, sound barriers or fences, mounding or berming, adjustments to yards or parking standards, design modification, or limiting hours of operation.”

1. Applicant states that existing retail use extends to the second floor.

The entire upper floor is a dwelling unit and not part of the retail space previously permitted by the City as a non-conforming use. Currently, VPC uses a portion as an office.

2. Existing use is documented as retail and no change is proposed to the dwelling unit on the second floor.

VPC is proposing to formalize the second floor office use. Their statement that “no change” is proposed upstairs is incorrect. The entire upper floor is a dwelling unit.

3. ‘Number of Clients’ is stated as rarely more than 45, which VPC contends is rarely reached. They also state that 45 is the maximum occupancy.

  • It is quite common for more than 50 customers and staff in the space.
  • The restaurant is often packed in this way on weekends or for special events.

4. Preamble: The applicant compares retail uses that have accessory food or beverage service to a restaurant use.

  • This is irrelevant. VPC is a full-service restaurant and functions as such.
  • We are unclear as to their reason for mentioning drug stores and flu shots.

5. Applicant states that there will be no changes to the existing kitchen.

  • Although the improvements such as the kitchen, toilet, restaurant areas, etc., are “existing” the applicant built them without a permit and for a use not properly permitted.
  • Any changes made at the time that the VPC began occupancy of the space should be considered, under the Seattle Building Code, as a change in occupancy.
  • The provisions under the applicable code should be complied with retroactively.
  • The proposal as submitted fails to address very serious life safety concerns associated with the restaurant use operating under a dwelling unit.
  • Furthermore there appear to be issues related to the compliance of the kitchen exhaust and possibly other areas not as readily visible or apparent.

6. Applicant states in various instances that the new use is no more impactful than current. It appears that VPC is comparing  to their own restaurant use and not to the grocery use.

As is the case with other aspects of VPC’s application, they state opinions as facts. VPC offers no data that is grounded in analysis.

Here is a PDF of the Volunteer Park Cafe and Marketplace – Conditional Use Application

VPC’s application: Overview of our critique

20 Dec

In addition to the more technical critique of VPC’s application found here, we are concerned that VPC continues to operate outside of compliance with City and State legal requirements. They do so with the attitude that a large following of supportive patrons provides them permission.

Much of the language in their application implies that they have communicated effectively with the neighborhood and that they have been thoughtful and considerate in their proposal.

This is not the case.

Updated 4/8/11.

DPD asks VPC for additional corrections: floor plans, etc.

15 Dec

The Department of Planning and Development (DPD) is requiring Volunteer Park Café to submit additional corrections to their Administrative Conditional Use application. The DPD seeks information that VPC neglected to provide in the original filing by VPC, requesting a  change in the land-use of the space they rent from ‘grocery’ to ‘an eating and drinking establishment.’

UPDATE 3/23/11: DPD issued a second corrections notice for upstairs floor plans.

The “Corrections Required” notice, issued Dec. 15th, states:

Please provide existing and proposed floor plans for ALL floors of the structure and please label all rooms and existing and proposed uses. “Existing” uses are uses that have been established by permit from our Department.

In addition, the Corrections Notice informed VPC that they could not use this ACU process to change the use of the second floor from its current, conforming use {‘residential’).

Please keep in mind that the Administrative Conditional Use application is to convert one nonconforming use to another nonconforming use. Any portion of the structure which has only ever been permitted as residential, cannot be converted to a nonconforming use.

In 1905, the second floor of 1501 17th Ave. E. was designated as a single-family dwelling; ‘residential.’ (The first floor of 1501 has the non-conforming use ‘grocery.) At some point, the upstairs split into two apartments, both also ‘residential.’

At a later point—perhaps as recently as early 2010—Volunteer Park Cafe rented the smaller of the two upstairs apartments to use as an office. The restaurant continues to operate the upstairs office, despite the DPD’s Dec. 15th  reminder that their current use of the space is illegal.

In its application, VPC suggests that their office, 265 sq ft on the 2nd floor, is legally permitted for retail use. Here is the text from the applicant’s Page 1, Question 2:

The proposed change of use is within in an existing two-story, wood frame structure with an unfinished basement. Specifically, the existing use of “retail sales and service, multipurpose” is made up of 1,690 sq. ft. on two floors. The main floor has 1425 sq. ft. and the 2nd floor has 265 sq. ft. The associated basement is used for storage for the existing use. The proposal is to change the existing 1,690 sq. ft. plus basement “retail sales and service, multipurpose” use to “restaurant.”

Clearly, DPD disagrees; as does Volunteer Park Neighbors. Click here to read our our critique of the technical issues in VPC’s application. You can read less technically oriented comments here.

The final element of the Correction Notice asked VPC to: “Please provide dimensions for all structures on the lot and their distances from all property lines.”

List of Confirmed Violations by Volunteer Park Café since 2006

26 Oct

Staff not permitted to serve (ie: carry out) anything to sidewalk customers. No alcohol at all is permitted outside 'grocery' space.

Volunteer Park Cafe has been open for more than 4 years without the required zoning permit.

  • This includes nearly one year since the City identified it as a violator.
  • The City is allowing the restaurant to stay open until it resolves it’s current land-use violation.

In May, 2010, VPC stated publicly, “We are not in violation and are legally compliant. We just need to change our non-conforming use.”

  • The statement followed directly VPC’s zoning violation from The Department of Planning & Development (DPD).
  • At that time, we knew only that VPC was operating outside its nonconforming use of “grocery.”
  • We have since learned that  VPC has a long list of land-use violations.

Reading it can be disorienting, especially for those who experience VPC solely as a well-looked-after customer. We have documentation for every claim.

1. No Use Permit

  • VPC opened as a restaurant without obtaining the necessary land-use approvals.  in other words, VPC has operated illegally since the day they opened.
  • Their current location, 1501 17th Ave. E., is part of a Single Family 5000 zone (single-family residences on lots no smaller than 5,000 square feet).
  • City of Seattle Land Use Code allows “non-conforming” uses under certain conditions.
  • The only business approved for 1501 17th Ave E. is a grocery; this non-conforming use applies only to the inside of the first floor of the building.
  • The second floor and back yard are ‘residential,’ in keeping with neighborhood zoning and land-use.
  • VPC is currently seeking a land-use change to allow ‘restaurant’ use of the first and second floors of 1501.

2. No Building Permit

  • VPC made changes to the interior of the building, including construction of a new commercial kitchen.
  • Permits helps ensure that fire safety and other codes are being met.
  • Fire safety is one of our primary concerns, given the occupied residential units above the restaurant, and the proximity of VPC to our homes.

3. No Sidewalk Permits

Sidewalk tables ready for standard but illegal dinner service.

  • When it opened in 2007, had no SDOT permit for sidewalk seating.
  • Soon after opening, the restaurant began serving food and alcohol on the sidewalk front of the restaurant’s entrance.
  • VPC applied for sidewalk permits in the spring of 2010. SDOT turned down the request.
  • In August, 2010, VPC obtained sidewalk permits.
  • VPC now has two (2) Street Use permits.
  • One is granted for the area directly in front of the building’s entry on 17th Ave. East. The second is for the stretch of the building that runs along Galer.

4. Misuse of Sidewalk Permits

  • Both permits (Use Code 14B) have the following restrictions:

¤ A maximum of four tables; two chairs each, open to the public.

¤ No alcohol permitted.

¤ Pedestrian passage of 5’-0” maintained at all times.

¤ No service of food or beverage permitted.

  • Through the summer of 2010, VPC’s standard sidewalk set-up used all tables and chairs on the front sidewalk (17th Ave. E.).
  • This set-up violated the required 5-foot passage.
  • VPC served lunches and dinners, including alcohol, in clear violation of the SDOT permit.

5. Misrepresentation on application for liquor liscence.

  • VPC stated incorrectly that they were a legally permitted use.
  • VPC failed to disclose their proximity to a school as required under the law.

6. In early 2010, VPC began building a patio area in the backyard with a clear intent to use it for commercial purposes.

  • Again, VPC did not seek the necessary land use approvals.

Oct. 12, 2010: illegal commercial use of back patio.

7. Use of Patio after DPD Warning and Violation Notices

  • Despite full knowledge as of spring 2010 that the patio could not legally be used for commercial purposes, VPC held backyard events on at least 3 occasions over the summer.
  • At this time VPC had not legalized their restaurant, let alone obtained legal land-use for commercial use of the patio.
  • Violations continued even after VPC submitted the application stating that they did not plan to use the patio for commercial purposes.

We have always been willing to live with — and enjoy — a legally compliant 40-seat restaurant, despite VPC’s impacts involving noise, traffic, parking, cooking odors, garbage overflows and more.

We’re not willing to live with the possibility of 30 more seats on a patio or use of the 2nd floor, and the ensuing greater impacts on our families.

DPD responds to latest patio misuse, 10/12.

24 Oct

As updated here, yesterday, Seattle’s DPD responded to our concern that VPC was getting up to its old tricks, serving on the patio for which they are not zoned.

According to the DPD, “Ericka said they had a photo shoot for a magazine. She also said that she asked those young people to leave when she saw them and the tables were removed when they were completed.”

VPC proved long ago that they get their way by getting away with the little stuff first. Right now, they have their hearts set on opening the back patio.

  • Civilians shoot a bunch of pictures. A photo shoot is a commercial activity.
  • VPC does not have zoning to use the patio for commercial purposes.
  • Unless the upstairs residents invited those young people as their guests and VPC did not charge them for their food, they are customers.
  • VPC is not zoned to serve customers on the patio.

VPC is in the middle of a defining public process. Now is the time for them to demonstrate that they understand that mitigating their impact is critical to running a business in a residential neighborhood; that in fact, it is the only way they will be allowed to do so.

Maybe VPC forgot to move the chairs. Maybe they forgot to lock the gates and someone saw the pretty set-up and thought it was OK to eat there. Maybe VPC forgot to mention to a customer who was heading out-doors with their VPC plate settings that dining on the patio was illegal. It sounds like VPC let them finish their meal.

Hold VPC accountable for the business decisions that impact the neighbors.

Perhaps accountability will give Ericka and Heather the motivation to move tempting chairs, to mention to customers that they are not yet allowed to eat outside.

Is VPC serving on their back patio?

14 Oct

Eating on the back patio at VPC. (10/12/10)

UPDATED 10/21: The City told VP Neighbors it would investigate. They planned to have a response by Friday, 10/22.

Although VPC has been ordered by The City Department of Planning and Development (DPD) to cease patio service, today, again, at least two people enjoyed dining the sun, using VPC’s tableware.

This summer, DPD shut down the patio as VPC did not have the correct zoning. Though VPC’s illegal land use (aka: zoning) also applied to their restaurant, DPD allowed VPC to continue restaurant operations while they rectified their zoning.

In order to stay open in the long-term, DPD required VPC to 1) change their zoning by public process or 2) come into compliance with their current zoning (‘non-conforming use’: grocery). VPC is currently involved in the public process. Should they be denied their zoning change, they can still operate within their existing zoning.

In its application to the DPD for zoning change, VPC says it expects to use the patio for outdoor cooking and “activities allowed in single family zones by the Seattle Municipal Code.”

Call received regarding illegal treatment of dog.

13 Oct

Volunteer Park Neighbors received a call noting how often an animal is left unleashed or illegally tied up in front of VPC. Owners are not permitted to leave an animal tied up on a sidewalk or street. Unleashed animals are not permitted on sidewalks.

Volunteer Park Neighbors can assist with recording your observations, but would like to point out that it is best for individuals to speak directly to VPC. Neighbors can help you determine your next steps and assist in any way we can.

VPC’s application now public record.

29 Sep

Today, the Deaprtment of Planning and Development (DPD) made public VPC’s Administrative Conditional Use application. In the document, applicant Ericka Burke formally requests a change in land-use of the space VPC rents from ‘grocery’ to ‘an eating and drinking establishment.’

The application is not available on-line. Anyone wishing to review VPC’s proposal will need to truck on down to  DPD’s Public Resource Center at the Seattle Municial Building. You want to read Project #3011437.

In the following days, we will be posting our opinions. You can read our overview here. You can also take a look at what we feel is a somewhat limited analysis by CHS (aka: the Capitol Hill blog.)

VPC declines to sign compromise agreement.

20 Sep

Today, neighbors received a response from VPC. While stating that they were committed to establishing and maintaining a good neighbor plan, that after discussion with the property’s owner, found it was not in the cafe’s nor the owners best interest to sign (what we feel is a) reasonable proposal.

The neighbors are very disappointed. Neighbors had hoped VPC would be willing to rebuild the trust they lost during the months they defamed their next-door neighbor and ignored concerns of others.

We hoped to be able to support VPC’s request to the City to change their zoning to allow a restaurant operation. Now, we cannot.

Neighbors, VPC meet for second time.

12 Sep

This evening, a group of neighbors met at VPC with the cafe owners, one cafe employee, and Roque (pronounced: “Rocky”) Deherrera, from the Office of Economic Development at the City of Seattle. It was 4 days before their deadline for submitting the application to legalize their restaurant.

Neighbors were hoping VPC owners would demonstrate a serious effort to rebuild the trust they lost during the months they defamed their next-door neighbor and ignored concerns of others

At the meeting, we covered the following points:

  • The cafe intend to submit for conditional use application on September 17th.
  • They plan to include the current restaurant area and the small office upstairs and the basement (for storage) in their submittal.
  • They don’t plan to pursue permission to use the backyard for outdoor activity.
  • They intend to continue to use the sidewalk.
  • They stated that the building owner is on board with their plans.
  • They volunteered that they are not going to apply for a hard liquor license.

Responding to specifics from our letter:

Garbage: they say they have increased pickup to 3 per week, which the neighbors maintain is not adequate.

  • The cafe plans to construct a garbage enclosure, and offered to dump all bottles before 8 pm.
  • They listed Terminix as their contractor for pest control.

Odors: discussed non-compliance of their current exhaust fan and the odors wafting into neighbors’ yards.

  • Cafe asked if neighbors would be supportive of barbequing in the backyard for occasional events.
  • Neighbors said, “No.”

Noise: neighbors clarified concerns about reflected noise and noise at clean-up; reiterated that they would not support sidewalk seating of any sort.

Traffic: cafe acknowledged issues with deliveries.

  • Said that, three weeks prior, began working with SDOT discussing a 30 minute Load Zone (which may be located on the south side of Galer).
  • Discussed Galer, Auburn, Garfield, and 17th and possible mitigation efforts that could be initiated by SDOT.
  • Discussed VPC policing illegal parking in their immediate vicinity.

Covenant: VPC didn’t feel a covenant was necessary, that landuse permit would address the issues. Neighbors disagreed.

Timing: cafe agreed to respond to our letter in one week, which might be a copy of their application


The meeting ended with the neighbors suggesting that more frequent and regular meetings occur between the neighborhood and VPC. Neighbors suggested quarterly meetings.

In summary, the primary disagreements appear to be 1) sidewalk seating and 2) the covenant. The cafe owners appeared willing to work with the neighbors on the remaining issues.

Good Neighbor Plan: Neighbors’ proposal to VPC

11 Sep

In preparation for the meeting scheduled for Sunday, the 12th, Volunteer Park Neighbors contacted VPC owners with the following information:

Volunteer Park Neighbors would like to support the operation of a small restaurant in the building and have given thought to what constitutes a good neighbor plan.

Families known to be concerned agree to a binding commitment to support VPC’s request for change of land use  if VPC owners as well as the owner of the building also agree to a binding commitment to the following:



1.  Upgrade and maintain the building and restaurant operation in compliance with all non-discretionary state and local regulations including for example fire/safety codes, building codes, public health and liquor regulations, etc.


2.  Use best available methods to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood in areas of garbage disposal, rodent control, and odor control.


3. Keep all customer eating and drinking and food preparation (cooking. barbecuing or similar activities) inside the building and maintain hours of operation as they have been this last summer.


4.  Assure an operation that curtails noise to be no greater than that which would be occasioned by a small grocery store or a single family residence.


5.  Insofar as possible, assure that patrons and employees respect parking regulations and assure that delivery vehicles follow an agreed to parking\unloading mitigation plan.


6.  Limit all eating and drinking establishment operations, including office uses, to the ground level.




Double-whammy parking impact.

16 Aug

12:30pm at corner of 17th and Galer.

Two parking impacts at once: delivery truck blocks “Stop” sign and red zone, while across the street in the shade, two cars block the fire hydrant.

The two parked cars belong to VPC owners Ericka Burke and Heather Earnhardt.

Note all the available legal parking.