Comments

1
They have been a nuisance for a while now. Plenty of people have complained about the noise from a busy restaurant and the rotting food and broken glass in the alley. The area was never zoned that way and the neighbors have tried to remind them of that when these issues have been brought up. Looks like they ignored their neighbors for too long.
2
I wonder what insightful comment Will in Seattle will have about this?
3
Oh, such vexing problems faced by rich retirees.

4
Welcome to the hell of high density living. You gerbils are all pissing on each other's newspaper shreds.

5
Maybe it's time to add a new category like "two-block radius". Something like "Closer to Dan's House Than Yours". For coverage of Kingfish or doublewide strollers clogging the sidewalks or lesbians making the most of attending Holy Names.
6
yum. . .kingfish. . .
7
I lived in that neighborhood for more than ten years. Never seen a bigger pack of NIMBY assholes. People who will protest an expansion of an elementary school. People who will knock on your door to ask you to move your car from in front of their house because it's "their" parking space.

Most of them are totally passive-aggressive about it -- they'd rather write an anonymous note or call the authorities than actually say something out loud, but there is a surplus of entitlement around there.

Note "property values" is the preferred code for "my opinions are more important than others in the community because my house costs more."
8
I would rather send hate mail to the dick than love mail to the bitch.
9
I remember when the original cafe opened - loved the food there.

That said, too many chickens easily rile up the neighbors. Especially those neighbors.
10
@7 for the 100 percent accurate NIMBY win.
11
LOL @8.

Such is life.
12
That cafe is the first business to do well in that space in the 30 years that I have been walking past that store on a regular basis. I honestly think the women who run it are kind of obnoxious, but @7 is dead right about that neighborhood. Those people suck, and the idea that they could kill a thriving successful business just because they don't want it near them is offensive and stupid.
13
City sez VPC has anywhere from 3 to 5 months to work this out
http://www.capitolhillseattle.com/2010/0…
14
I love the place. Truly welcoming people, absolutely fantastic food.
15
You know what, @7 and @12 - it kind of sucks to paint with such a broad brush. I live in the area and I know a lot of people who live close to VPC and everyone I know supports VPC and is friendly to their neighbors.

Absolutely - there are probably some curmudgeons and some NIMBYs and there are also people with completely valid opinions that might be different than your own. But, seriously? "Those people suck?" Proving once again that a few purportedly "progressive" readers of SLOG can be very intolerant and snobbish.

Personally I like VPC for all their foibles and I don't really have a problem with their expansion. But then again I don't live next door. And I definitely think they need to fix their zoning problem. Ultimately it will come down to DPD and public comment.
16
Sartre was right.

17
@16 - what, first we kill all the lawyers and then get drunk?
18
Everyone's got a right to bitch about whatever they want. If there was some fancy company that wanted to build something noisy right next to my house, I'd complain too. As I'd expect almost anyone would do, unless they had some kind of inferiority complex and decided they didn't deserve to have their opinion heard.
19
If I lived next door to this place I would count my blessings. It's one of the hidden gems of Capital Hill.

The whiner is clearly not much interested in local economic development for jobs or for business-related reasons. What they are interested in is the value of their asset. Which is understandable.

And it's why your neighborhood will soon suck.
20
The VPC is a wonderful place. Great food, organic food from local farms such as full circle farms and great place to meet your neighbors. People love to see each other there and help each other out. I know more people than I ever would have thanks to the cafe. the cafe also has a large communal table and family dinners. the person who mentioned rich retirees... what are you talking about, this is a neighborhood of families with children. This is about organic, sustainable food, recycling and living green. The world is going to move to higher density and will need more places for people to walk to in their neighborhoods rather than big box stores. I live right near the cafe and go there everyday. No ONE in the neighborhood I know of has been complaining about any smells or even parking. It's a very friendly situation. don't knock it until you try it.
21
@19, the cafe has been there for years. The neighbor has not been trying to shut them down for years. He took this action when they tried to further expand their outdoor seating.

I often walk past this place and took a stroll there this evening. Here's what I noticed: 1.The dumpsters in back REEK and are noticeable halfway down the alley. The rat scuttling underneath was a nice touch. 2. The cafe, as it often does, has all the windows and doors open. The clanking of dishes, din of conversation and laughter, and loud music are audible across the street. And even if they close at 9 PM, that doesn't mean they close up and go home. As any restaurant worker knows, there's usually at least an hour of cleanup after the last meal is served. 3. The neighbor has two windows directly overlooking the courtyard in question, one on the first and one on the second floor. Based on how much I can hear *my* neighbors when they dine in their backyard in the evenings, I can't imagine having several tables of people right outside my windows and back yard.

This is also not a commercial zone or retail strip. It's a very quiet neighborhood of single-family houses (some of which are converted into duplexes). It is zoned for residential use. There are very, very few other businesses in the vicinity. There are multitudes of commercial and mixed-use areas in the city for a business of this nature.

For those screaming NIMBY, this neighbor did not move above a bar or restaurant or club on Pike/Pine, or downtown, or Belltown or any other dense multi-use area, and then start complaining about the noise. Just the opposite happened. He bought a house in a quiet neighborhood, and the business owners moved in and are infringing on the neighbors with their garbage, noise and traffic. They now demand the right to infringe even further by expanding their outdoor seating (and noise), in spite of the impact on their surroundings. Perhaps they should rethink their impact on others. Would Ms. Burke like it if her neighbors opened an outdoor cafe outside her bedroom window?
22
@21, who said that "this neighbor did not move above a bar or restaurant or club on Pike/Pine, or downtown, or Belltown or any other dense multi-use area, and then start complaining about the noise. Just the opposite happened. He bought a house in a quiet neighborhood, and the business owners moved in..."

Actually, he moved behind an establishment that has been handling food, receiving deliveries, and making business-y noises of one sort or another since 1905, which in Seattle terms is literally the dawn of time. It has been operating as a café for at least 15 years; do you have any evidence that this neighbor predates that?

Seattle has such a dearth of mixed-use areas that we're used to making a false choice: live in one of the dozen or so bustling areas and put up with annoyances both minor (odd-hours deliveries) and major (cavalcade of douchebags on weekend nights); or live in a "quiet neighborhood" and be near absolutely fucking nothing.

And then there's the Volunteer Park Café, a true neighborhood bistro in that, by virtue of its squirreled-away location, it primarily serves its own neighbors. Whom it seems to care about. Thanks to Seattle's 1950s approach to zoning, it might be the only such place in the city. But we're still stuck in the '50s in so many ways, so necessarily someone screams "ZONING!" and tries to bury this rare gem.
23
@1: What puzzles me about NIMBY Seattleites such as yourself and Mr. Jones is how you’d rather focus on discarded food scraps and broken glass (both of which end up in the trash and recycling bins you leave out curbside for pick-up each week, right?). You’re losing sight of a. the social benefit of having a third place within walking distance from your home where you can easily buy affordable food, coffee, and other treats whilst getting to know your neighbors better, and b. the fact that its presence in the neighborhood is within walking distance and doesn’t require you getting in your car and driving a mile or more away to get to the Broadway or 15th neighborhoods. Heaven forbid you actually get comfortable enough with the VPC owners that you could have civil conversations with them about your concerns (which I’m sure they would work with you and the rest of the neighborhood to alleviate).

But this is precisely the problem I have with the zoning codes of Seattle: it doesn’t encourage more al fresco dining nor a proliferation of food cart pods in neighborhoods such as what Portlanders now enjoy. Certainly there are successful examples in Seattle of how neighborhood coffee shops, pubs, and small restaurants can encourage walkable travel (Cloud City Café in Maple Leaf and Roanoake Park Place Pub are two that come to mind) and by proxy increased community building, but it’s not enough.

As for the property value decline argument, whatever. Does the presence of Top Pot and Sun Liquor within a block of a condo really decrease its demand? I beg to differ. I’d pay more to live in an area where I can leave my car at home more often than not.

Needless to say, I’ll be e-mailing my letter of support to the VPC owners tonight. @1 & Mr. Jones – get over it.
24
That place is a hidden gem. Can't believe the neighbors are hating on it.
25
@22, the neighbor built his house on that property in 1988. VPC has been in that location, what, four years?

You're completely missing the point. This cafe opened there like four years ago (correct me if I'm wrong, I read that somewhere). The neighbor has not been trying to shut them down for those four years. He only complained because they are trying to expand their OUTDOOR seating. Do you get it? Can you comprehend? The previous store/cafe did NOT HAVE OUTDOOR SEATING. His complaint is about THE EXPANSION OF OUTDOOR SEATING. Do you get it now, screechy?
26
@25

So what's the big fucking deal with outdoor seating?
27
@22, I notice that you completely ignore legitimate complaints: the garbage, the noise, the traffic, in a RESIDENTIAL neighborhood. This area is NOT zoned for commercial or multi-use purposes, and the owners got busted when they tried to further infringe on those who live nearby. And we have a "dearth" of mixed-use areas? Seriously? You're probably one of those rubes that complains online that Seattle has "no parks" or "no open space".

Eliza, please post your address so that I can work on opening an outdoor cafe right outside your bedroom windows that will only be open until 9 p.m. or so.
28
Volunteer Park Cafe: HECK YES.
Chickens at Volunteer Park Cafe: NO, NO, A THOUSAND TIMES NO.
29
@1/21: What is wrong with you people?!? They're extremely quiet for a restaurant, wonderfully delicious and provide outer space to socialize which is an important part of URBAN life. If this is offensive to you, I shudder to think what you'd think of actual adversity or real city life. There are a multitude of suburbs waiting for. Move there.
30
Wow, @25/@27, I might have suspected you were the neighbor in question, but more likely you're just a dick.

Firstly, it sounds like there was some increased outdoor socializing, but that outdoor food service and table seating had yet to materialize. So according to your understanding -- that outdoor seating is the only thing to which the neighbor objects -- then he's exacting retribution for a hypothetical. It's more likely, as the café owners allege, that he's been a thorn for a while, and the patio is just his excuse to ratchet up the hostility.

And if you had bothered to learn to read, you might know that the establishment has operated as a café for 15 years, and that the current proprietors assumed ownership of it, in good faith, as a café. Meanwhile, the neighbor built a house behind what had been an operational business since 1905, so any claim to an expectation of exclusive residential zoning doesn't have a leg to stand on.

But it's funny to me that you make such an absolutist zoning argument, then claim Seattle is chock-full of mixed-use areas. Outside of downtown, there are about a dozen mixed-use streets in the entire city; activity is hyper-concentrated, which is why each one seems overrun with restaurants and bars, and undesirables from vagrants to meatheads. There is no natural gradation of development between overbearing and empty. It is one or the other, and yes, that is the result of your cherished absolutist zoning.
31
Perhaps Paul should be more careful in calling attention to himself since his home is markedly under assessed by the King Co. Assessors office. The home directly west of VPN recently sold for $910,000 while Paul's home (directly north of VPN) is assessed at $691,000 (that's a $219,000 difference--wow). Could someone please contact the assessors office and alert them of this sale? Paul should pay his fair share of taxes as a contributing member of the neighborhood. I wonder is Paul's property has any non conforming land use issues that we should know about?

32
Dinky or not, Seattle is still a city. If you want total peace and quiet and pristine surroundings move to fricken Gold Bar or something.

That said, Seattle is a city. Chickens? NO.
33
@ 32, pull your head out of your ass. There's no reason to prohibit chickens from the city. Hens, anyway, since they're no more of a nuisance than dogs.
34
Ah yes. People who buy houses don't want to deal with commerce nearby. Why walk to the corner store when you can drive a mile to the strip mall or five miles to the Super Walfart? Cars and gas are cheap after all.

Gag.
35
yes, that's right @34. every person who buys a house wants no commerce nearby.
36
@32 - just because someone doesn't want an open dining patio right next to their window doesn't mean thay need "total peace and quiet and pristine surroundings".
37
@26 - if you live next door and you did NOT have outdoor seating next to your windows and then you suddenly DID have outdoor seating next to your windows, I can see it being a big deal. I think a lot of folks here are being willfully obtuse and not really seeing things from anybody else's perspective. It's easy to be militantly urbanist when it's not your life that's going to change.

And I'm not arguing AGAINST VPC or outdoor seating at all. Sometimes there are winners and losers in urban life and we should try to be sympathetic to the losers in a situation even if we don't agree with their position. And even if they're being overly emotional and angry in their reaction because they are being FORCED to accept change. Change can be hard. You know what's NOT hard? Taking an extreme position in a debate when you have ZERO skin in the game.
38
@34, I own a house, in the city. Yes, I'm a dirty imperialist capitalist exploiter, and you're just gonna have to deal with it. While my house is located in a single-family zone, I live two blocks from a NC1-zoned area. I WALK just a mere few blocks to my local and independently-owned video store, gym, dry cleaner, pet supply store, convenience store, bakeries, garden store and several restaurants. Another mile away are my grocery store, bank, and many other amenities, which I WALK to. I support local, independent entrepreneurs in my neighborhood (and the people they employ) with my hard-earned dollars. I do not own a car. I walk pretty much everywhere, or if I really must, I use transit or taxis. I enjoy being able to WALK to these amenities, and I enjoy supporting local, independent businesses. I chose my neighborhood because I could live in a residential area, with walking access to a local business area, and have lived here for nearly a decade. That said, I would pitch a big fucking hissy fit if someone tried to open an outdoor cafe outside my bedroom window in an area that is not zoned for such a business. If I wanted that, I would live on Broadway, or even 15th, or maybe even 19th, or in an apartment on Madison, or in any other of the multitude of multi-use or commercial zones in our city. Quite honestly, I'm past the age of wanting to listen to people exit noisy bars and restaurants while I'm trying to go to sleep, because I have another 9-hour work day ahead of me tomorrow. And yet I still want to live in the city, and not drive, and not waste fossil fuels, or shop at big box stores, and have a carbon footprint of a gazillion, while being surrounded by people who worship Sarah Palin. Surely there has to be some compromise. There has to be a greater choice than "deal with it you live in a CITY, bitch" or "move to Issaquah, bitch". Oh, and P.S., all of us evil homeowners that you disdain so much pay huge amounts of property tax that go to support all kinds of county services that everyone uses. Most of us even actually vote FOR property tax increases for things like schools and parks and social services, so please stop with the "property owners are evil and mean and vindictive" whining.
39
@30: a DOZEN mixed-use areas? You are smoking crack. Spend some time looking at DPD zone maps. Because if you keep up with the dozen, you just sound like you are smoking crack.

You are still ignoring the evidence: rank garbage, noise, and traffic in a NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IS NOT ZONED FOR BUSINESS USE. Do you get it? NOT ZONED FOR BUSINESS USE. The previous STORE was grandfathered in because of its age, and is NOT ZONED TO BE A RESTAURANT. The owners are, by their own admission, operating that business in a building that is NOT ZONED OR PERMITTED FOR THAT USE. Do you understand now?

BTW, slick, I don't make up the "absolutist" zoning codes. If you have a problem, take it up with the DPD. "There is no natural gradation of development between overbearing and empty" is just fucking laughable. Do you even live in Seattle? Because you sound like don't have a fucking clue as to what you're talking about.
40
@39: And you sound like an asinine douchebag!

I checked out your precious map, and it confirmed what I said. There are just a few infinitesimal strips of light blue ("Seattle mixed" zoning) in a sea of "single family" and "low-rise" yellow.

Meanwhile, you can't scream "NOT ZONED FOR BUSINESS USE" twice in a row and then gloss over that the site (not just the grocer) "was grandfathered in because of its age." Grandfathering a site that pre-dates the zoning code is common practice, and nullifies your "not zoned" absolute.

Another term you may not understand: "Good Faith." As in, the current owners of Volunteer Park Café entered into an agreement to purchase and operate an already-functioning café in good faith. Which actually means a great deal before the law, as society has an interest in not financially punishing those who enter into business arrangements with the best of intentions and a reasonable expectation that the other party has fulfilled its obligations before the law.

As for your last "point" -- which your own zoning map refutes -- this city is a big fucking suburb compared to most any other coastal city with geological constrictions. Los Angeles, everyone's favorite supposed sprawl-happy whipping boy, has more mixed usage in any given square mile than we have in our entire city. You sound like someone who's never bothered to travel beyond Seattle in your lifetime. You also sound like a fucking dipshit.
41
Oh, and @38/@39, just to respond in advance to your next dumb comment:

Nobody here has argued that the café necessarily has the right to build a chicken coop, to make excessive noise, or to install outdoor seating. (The garden should be fine; who in a "residential neighborhood" can justify complaining about a garden?) But if those were the neighbor's true worries, he likely could have resolved them by having a reasonable discussion with the owners.

But the neighbor, in good Seattle fashion, is actually just using those canards as a passive-aggressive pretext to shut the café down. He -- like you -- believes that the present-day residential zoning supersedes all, and that the café therefore has no right to exist. You're both wrong -- not just morally, but legally.

P.S. Kind of funny how you scoff at my comment about development gradation, and then immediately proceed to talk about how awesome it is for you to live on a quiet single-family street and walk two blocks to a busy commercial zone. Guess what, dumbass? That's a total lack of gradation!
42
They had a nice little business going, thanks to an odd little grandfather of a grandfather clause, but then they BLEW IT by being GREEDY. If the whole place closes it'll be a shame, but it will be their fault.

Their claim that they aren't expanding by adding more outdoor seating ("..."we're not... Frankly, our kitchen can’t support any more customers"") is disingenuous horseshit. Restaurants expand by adding more tables and letting customers wait longer for a sandwich.
43
And as for the inarguable pleasures of "outdoor seating" and "walking neighborhoods," how about walking your bagged sandwich an extra block to the PARK?
44
It would seem to me the question isn't whether you like the cafe or dislike the cafe, it's a question of whether they have the right to be there. Putting aside what the restaurant says what happened, they operated a restaurant for 15 years without a permit. The argument that they put "Cafe" on the lease with a private individual does not grant them the right to run a restaurant, as I suspect they knew. Whether or not you like the cafe or dislike the cafe and the environment it creates, citizens have a right to complain about infringement in zoning laws...no matter what their motivation. The law must not discriminate based on perceived value or disadvantage of a business. It must treat all people equally. Nice cafe, greasy spoon, rowdy crowd, soccer moms...it shouldn't matter in the eyes of the law. It should only matter if they have complied with the laws and statutes of the city/state etc.

It sounds to me like the Cafe played a bit fast and loose with the law and permits, and I would suspect that they reason they did not apply for a restaurant permit was because they recognized it would be rejected. I have a hard time believing that a restaurant owners did not know the laws and rules for fifteen years.

If the cafe stays open, when others have been closed for the same infraction, it sends a clear message that people are not equal, and we'll make exceptions for the right kinds of people (which, personally, puts my teeth on edge).
45
@44:

It seems that the old owners were arrogant enough to run a café from 1995-2007 without bothering to follow the rules and apply for the correct permits. If this debate were about them, I would have approximately zero sympathy.

But the new owners appear to have acquired the business in good faith.

Expressing dismay about their attempts at expansion and chicken-farming (both are questionable) is different than impugning their right to exist, which would punish them for the sins of their predecessors. It's morally wrong -- and legally not nearly as cut-and-dried as the neighbor would like to believe.
46
@45

You are correct that the original owner violated the rules to apply for permits. However, before taking over a business, it is the responsibility of the owners to request and verify the correct permitting. They would be punished for operating a restaurant without a permit. This is their transgression. If they trusted everything was kosher, that was a mistake, but it was their mistake. I would not purchase a car from somebody without seeing the papers. If I did, and the car was taken from me because the original possessor stole it. His "sin" is transferred upon me, and I have to give up the car.

If we could punish the original transgressor, we should. As it stands, I believe the Cafe owners probably have a fair case against their lessor.

That aside, the DPD must make a ruling based on the laws that have been codified.

I would also state, in your scenario, a large loophole would exist, allowing one party to create a business in violation of zoning and legitimize it by leasing the business to a second party that can claim ignorance of permitting.

Finally, according to the writing. the DPD has already received letters objecting to the restaurant permitting. I suppose it's possible all the letters have been from the single neighbor, but I suspect there might be more than one objector in the neighborhood.

47
If they have a commercial lease that specifies "cafe," the current owners have cause to seek legal remedy against the bozos who contracted with them. But their push to expand pollutes that argument: there is simply no plausible way they could have NOT realized that they were enjoying the fruits of a zoning anomaly. I think the "entitlement" problem here lies with these women and their chicken coops. They are the capitalists in this scenario, and they weren't satisfied with the clearly profitable business they were running.
48
@46: All of your points are fair and valid. As I said, nothing is cut-and-dried here.

They made a stupid and grievous error in failing to check the proper permitting for themselves. But what the repercussions should be may depend on the circumstances in which they made that error. Did the previous proprietors and/or landlord falsely represent, explicitly or implicitly, the permitting status?

In your stolen-car analogy, the thief's sin is not entirely transferred to you, as you are not subject to arrest for grand theft auto. But whether you are at risk of having you car seized versus going to jail for receiving stolen property depends on your level of knowledge at the time of the transaction.

Regarding your hypothesized loophole: Your second party (the lessee) would have no "reasonable expectation" that a newly-created business was properly permitted and operating legally. There is no way said party would believe the permitting secure unless the first partly explicitly and falsely represented it as such (negating the first party's ability to "legitimize it" without further illegal conduct).

But the new proprietors of a business that has been operating for 12 years without incident would absolutely have a "reasonable expectation" that the business had been operating legitimately -- yes, the neighborhood and type of business do come into play here -- mitigating (not excusing) the stupidity of not checking on the permits themselves. If the current owners were actively discouraged from checking on the permits via an act of false representation, then they would most certainly have a claim against the prior owners and/or landlord.

And of course the Dept. of Planning and Development should make a ruling based on "laws that have been codified." But those who try to reduce this debate to "CURRENT ZONING RESIDENTIAL. RESTAURANT DIE NOW" do so inaccurately and at the risk of looking stupid.
49
This Paul Jones guy really does sound like a relentless douche, but that doesn't mean his concern is invalid. The city's process seems reasonable and will factor in the community's response - as it should. I'm glad they're evaluating the case and not just shutting them down for a blatant zoning violation (although, really, who doesn't check the zoning before starting a business!?). That said, what irritates me about this thread are all of the people who favor multiuse neighborhoods (and likely live in one of the neighborhoods that reflect that value) assuming that everyone should share that value if they live in the city. Those of you with this opinion might be surprised to find out how many purely residential neighborhoods are in the Seattle city limits. I'm not saying that's a better way to live, but there are a diversity of opinions on this topic and people usually opt-in to neighborhoods that suit their lifestyle preferences.
50
@46 and @48... Interesting conversation...

The thing about it is it's easy to check how a property is zoned. It's super easy. There's really not much of an excuse not to do it. It's part of due diligance.

For another analogy - In a residential real-estate transaction every buyer will do their own inspection, right? Why? Because everyone knows that it's NOT ENOUGH JUST TO TRUST THE SELLER'S DISCLOSURES. You start with the seller's disclosures but you also do your own inspection. Every fool knows that. The problem with trusting the seller's disclosures is you don't know what you don't know.

The fact that there is "good faith" involved is at best possibly a slightly mitigating factor when DPD reviews the use change request.

51
@50: Obviously the café's current owners dropped the due-diligence ball.

But it's not as easy as "checking zoning." The five or six types of commercial zoning are distinguished by arbitrary criteria of scale, location, and extent, and not precisely by usage. A grocer would not necessarily have a zoning requirement different than a restaurant. Those distinctions have everything to do with permitting, not zoning. (In D.P.D.'s descriptions of commercial zoning, "coffee shop" and "restaurant" are used somewhat ambiguously, ignoring the complexity-of-food-preparation gray area between the two. I presume this is in deference to the precedence that permitting takes.)

In this case, the building is improperly zoned. Period. The structure pre-dates the zoning code and is inappropriate for residential use. And yet no official zoning exemption was made when zoning was enacted (as it probably should have been); the grandfathering was somehow otherwise addressed. My understanding is that no zoning enactment/change can force the destruction of an existing structure or closure of an existing business except by a parallel eminent domain action.

So the current zoning baldly conflicts with both the current structure and the current usage, all with varying degrees of longevity (respectively: decades; an entire century; 15 years). Not easily resolvable.

I don't know if there is an equivalent doctrine to adverse possession for business operations, but there should be. The Volunteer Park Café can easily demonstrate 15 years of a net-positive impact on their community to tilt the competing zoning/usage concerns in their favor.
52
@41, "(The garden should be fine; who in a "residential neighborhood" can justify complaining about a garden?)"

This is not a private-use garden for a next-door resident. It's an outdoor seating area for a restaurant. Apparently this particular neighbor felt justified in complaining. That the garden "should" be fine implies that you implicitly trust the business owners to operate it in a manner which does not infringe on their neighbor.

"But if those were the neighbor's true worries, he likely could have resolved them by having a reasonable discussion with the owners."

The neighbor obviously felt that the worry was not resolved, hence took the next step of complaining to the city. According to the DPD web site, this is the first formal complaint made against the cafe. It seems that the neighbor let things go FOR YEARS until the cafe owners took the additional step of expanding their outdoor seating area.

"But the neighbor, in good Seattle fashion, is actually just using those canards as a passive-aggressive pretext to shut the café down." See points 1 and 2.

"He -- like you -- believes that the present-day residential zoning supersedes all, and that the café therefore has no right to exist." First, see point 2. Second, I have never said that the cafe does not have a right to exist. But there is a fact that they are operating a restaurant in an area that is not currently zoned for that use, and they have now been faced with a city-administered review of this situation.

Lastly, I am not #39, but calling someone a dumbass is a really classy way to spiff up your argument. My point in #38 was not about "gradation" or zoning laws, but was in response to the statement that "People who buy houses don't want to deal with commerce nearby." And yes, it is rather awesome that I can live in a SF zone and walk to local businesses. It's one of the reasons I live in Seattle. It's pretty fucking great, actually.
53
@52: Sorry if I confused @39 for you. @39 thought I was "smoking crack" for not agreeing with his/her simplistic understanding of zoning, which he/she thought would be more persuasively communicated by screaming it repeatedly in capital letters. I'm pretty sure I was justified in calling him/her a dumbass.

When I used the term "garden," I was specifically referring to areas being aesthetically enhanced with flowerbeds or used to grow vegetables, and perhaps also intended as an overflow waiting area in nice weather. I'm pretty sure I was clear in distinguishing this from outdoor dining space -- a potentially trickier issue.

The problem with zoning that falls precipitously from dense to single-family in just a block is that, while you may be lucky enough to live two blocks away, the vast majority will not be. It's just simple math: low-density housing will never house enough people within walking distance of a commercial area to fully sustain that commercial area. Why is 15th always at saturation-parking levels? It's certainly not from all the people who live 2 blocks away!

This is why our city sustains relatively few of these commercial strips over such a vast area, and why the ones in otherwise single-family areas are so small. It's also why we're unable to sustain a transit system that is simultaneously frequent, high-capacity, and widespread... or, for that matter, to get the majority out of their cars.

The Volunteer Park Café is a rare exception. It's so far out of the way, and so difficult to get to from other parts of the city, that it actually primarily serves its own neighborhood! It can be sustained by those within walking distance because it is just one business (whereas a strip of 30 businesses would need far more total customers to remain buoyant). I don't get the sense that many people drive there -- I know the frequency of my visits drops to zero when I have no other reason to be in the area.
54
"It's just simple math: low-density housing will never house enough people within walking distance of a commercial area to fully sustain that commercial area."

I dunno... the 1/2 mile commercial strip in my neighborhood is chock-full of successful businesses that have been there for years. And as human beings are wont to do, most of us are not satisfied to stay within our own walkable neighborhoods. People want to venture out to other areas. Maybe they use transit, or drive, or bike there, but there are commercial areas like Madison Valley or Madison Park or parts of West Seattle, or Ballard that are surrounded by low-density housing, and yet they somehow survive and even thrive. But perhaps your argument is that people should only walk to local amenities?

"It's also why we're unable to sustain a transit system that is simultaneously frequent, high-capacity, and widespread... or, for that matter, to get the majority out of their cars."

Having been to some rather dense cities that have a greater incorporation of residential and commercial buildings, there is more to the equation that just density. I've never seen so much traffic as I have in Buenos Aires, and yet this is an extremely dense urban area with commercial and residential very integrated (it ranks as one of the loudest cities in the world due to auto traffic). Same with Tokyo, which also has one of the largest transit systems in the world. There are cars everywhere. Paris? I wanted to kill myself when stuck in traffic there. Creating an urban landscape that allows people to walk to amenities in their vicinity is only part of the solution to getting people out of their cars. And Moscow? There is very little SF housing in the city, and yet you're lucky if you can make it halfway across town in a car in under three hours. Moscow also has one of the most expansive and highly used metro systems in the world - but the traffic there is completely INSANE.
55
Talbot... Not sure you'll ever see this so many days later, but I thought your @54 deserved a response.

I presume that the strip you're talking about is 15th, and that you live somewhere around 17th. Your neighborhood is about as lovely as an in-city suburbanized neighborhood could possibly be -- so don't think I'm arguing for its wholesale replacement -- but if you think your nearby detached-house area is single-handedly propping up the 15th stretch, you're kidding yourself.

As you say, human beings are wont to explore other parts of their city, and don't just stick to their own neighborhood. Seattleites do this too, but they do it far less than in other cities. Perhaps its the geographic obstacles, the lack of urban continuity (to encourage distance-walking), the potential for traffic, the frustration of parking, or the pervasive horribleness of the public transit, but Seattleites "keep it in the neighborhood" more than most urban dwellers. I know plenty of Capitol Hill dwellers who barely leave the Hill except for work or for special occasions.

Anecdotally, I'd estimate that 1/4 of the 15th Ave strip's business comes from outside the Hill. Another 1/4 seem to come by foot, bike, or bus, mostly from the dozen denser blocks to the west of the strip, whose inhabitants are more accustomed to walking moderate distances to their destination.

The rest of 15th's business arrives from the vast expanses of single-family Capital Hill that stretch well beyond its walkshed -- Interlaken, Montlake, the north end of 10th, and the areas on the fringes of the Arboretum, the Madison Valley, and the C.D. These people are driving (thus the traffic and the dearth of parking), and they vastly outnumber those like you who are close enough and willing to walk. Without them, the immediate drop in density from 15th to your home would be fatal to 15th.

Your other examples are even starker. The Madison Valley commercial zone is very successful, and virtually no one walks to it! Its extremely low-density area of primary patronage stretches at least a mile in every direction.

Ballard, meanwhile, is able to be more than "a strip," supporting a half-dozen crisscrossing streets of unbroken activity (almost like a real city neighborhood). This is precisely because it is mixed-used, contains varying densities that stretch in all directions from its core, and does not segregate its commercial center from a vast residential expanse in as absolute terms as your two other examples. But you know what? In spite of all that, a pretty high percentage of the patrons that keep downtown Ballard afloat still drive in from four square miles of 1950s single-family Ballard that have no services of their own!

I don't know exactly how to address your second point without writing volumes. You are correct that all of the super-dense "world cities" you cite reach a critical mass such that traffic will always persist, no matter how small a percentage of "total trips" it represents. There are simply very few streets, so if even a minority use vehicles for the transport of goods, to reach areas not well-served by transit, or out of vanity, traffic will ensue. Although I think you'd be surprised how many of the road-clogging vehicles originated outside of the areas of density -- all of those cities are sprawled, suburbanized, and (in the case of Paris and Moscow) ex-urban tower-blocked in a way that puts vehicles on the road. (Conversely, if you know your way around and drive outside of rush hour, when few are coming and going from the suburbs, you can zip around those cities surprisingly easily in a car! Ditto for New York and Boston.)

But anywhere within the actual urban area of any of your examples, you wouldn't need to be fighting traffic. Thanks to density, almost any neighborhood would contain basic services, usually within a few blocks, and a transport network sufficient to get you anywhere else you might need/desire to go would be supportable!
56
This article and many articles like it seem to skip over or even ignore facts that happen in this conflict. First off, this isn't one angry neighbor being a grouch and attacking the cafe because he didn't like the idea of back door seating. the plan told to neighbors including the ones living next to VPC was that they were planing to use the area for not only seating but also a barbecue, which would be in use many of the open hours, and unlike what we'd normally think of at the word barbecue, this would be a much larger scale. Most neighbors were actually against this use of the back yard, now to remind everyone this doesn't mean everyone living around the cafe was against it being open, in fact even the neighbors living next to VPC are happy with the cafe in general, and don't wish to see it close its doors. Another part of this argument that's over looked is that this Paul Jones after consulting with the other neighbors confronted the cafe multiple times about the use of the back yard, and if a middle ground could be found. the cafe ignored him and continued to even after he informed them about the zoning issues let alone the fact that no seating is allowed less then 50 feet away from residential housing, this means that it was not out of the blue for VPC when they were informed of their zoning violations, as they were forewarned multiple times this would happen if the continued to ignore the neighbors living close to the cafe. Even this article is unable to give a complete or correct view of the situation, this can be proven by a few different parts in this article. "Jones couldn't be reached for comment." there was never an actual attempt to reach Paul Jones, or at least one that would inform him of this article so he could contact to writer to give a comment. ""He seemed to think we're expanding our business, but we're not," Earnhardt says. "Frankly, our kitchen can’t support any more customers."" as I said before their plan was to expand their business, the fact that this wasn't mentioned points to the idea that this article only had the side of Earnhardt, and that she in fact is using mudslinging to rally others to VPC's defense. the fact that very few of you care to even consider this is causing great distress to the neighbors you insult.
57
To my friends next door:

I read all the comments. Some pro some con....

I think you guys should keep your heads up, stand firm in your beliefs.

They are the ones in the wrong, if they had a legal business license it wouldn't even be an issue.

The old lady that owns the building mislead them, its not your fault.

When ever I have built anything I get a permit, they should have too, before they started working in the back garden, and they should have walked the neighborhood and talked to everyone to see if it was acceptable to make an addition to the business.



When I have visited you lately I have a hard time getting in your driveway its blocked by people illegally parking, I wouldn't like this at my house!

Its been noisy when I visit and I would not have this at my house. I know you lived there before any restaurant was there!!! From what I've read they aren't coming up with a solution just a lot of bashing, it shows the true personality....dog eat dog, not just a simple quiet eatery as they are trying to portray themselves.

You custom built the house in a quiet little part of Capitol Hill to raise your kids in a residential neighborhood close to the public elementary school and the local church you go to.

I know how sensitive you are, but don't let it get to you, its not your lively hood its theirs.



Be strong, stand firm and everything will work out to be the way it should be.

No matter what..... they need to get licensed its up to the city, if you don't want a restaurant next door let them know about it, its freedom of speech, most of the people that wrote in wouldn't like it next door to them either, its easy to say they would until some one started building a restaurant next door to them. YOU are the only family next door no one else can know the true impact it has on your household!

If anyone wants to be next to a restaurant and city life I have a condo for rent in Belltown, Macrina bakery is just as good as VPC!!!!!
a friend in the north end...K
58
To my friends next door:
I read all the comments. Some pro some con....
I think you guys should keep your heads up, stand firm in your beliefs.
They are the ones in the wrong, if they had a legal business license it wouldn't even be an issue.
The old lady that owns the building mislead them, its not your fault.
When ever I have built anything I get a permit, they should have too, before they started working in the back garden, and they should have walked the neighborhood and talked to everyone to see if it was acceptable to make an addition to the business.

When I have visited you lately I have a hard time getting in your driveway its blocked by people illegally parking, I wouldn't like this at my house!
Its been noisy when I visit and I would not have this at my house. I know you lived there before any restaurant was there!!! From what I've read they aren't coming up with a solution just a lot of bashing, it shows the true personality....dog eat dog, not just a simple quiet eatery as they are trying to portray themselves.
You custom built the house in a quiet little part of Capitol Hill to raise your kids in a residential neighborhood close to the public elementary school and the local church you go to.
I know how sensitive you are, but don't let it get to you, its not your lively hood its theirs.

Be strong, stand firm and everything will work out to be the way it should be.
No matter what..... they need to get licensed its up to the city, if you don't want a restaurant next door let them know about it, its freedom of speech, most of the people that wrote in wouldn't like it next door to them either, its easy to say they would until some one started building a restaurant next door to them. YOU are the only family next door no one else can know the true impact it has on your household!
If anyone wants to be next to a restaurant and city life I have a condo for rent in Belltown, Macrina bakery is just as good as VPC!!!!!
59
The SLOG article presented only one side -- the restaurant's side. Perhaps it was meant to be an opinion piece and not an objective news piece. From the crowds that gather to eat at the restaurant, it is obvious that many people enjoy the food. However, few are imagining what it would be like to live right next to a lively eating establishment, which generates noise from early morning to late evening, has lots of delivery-truck traffic and adds many more parked cars to an already tight parking situation, and attracts many rats and crows that gather to eat the leavings around the trash bins and dumpsters in the alley. When the planned chicken coop comes, the rats will move in, in hordes (trust me, I grew up on a farm), and the urban raccoons, opossum, and and coyotes will likely line up, as well, to partake of the garbage, eggs, and even the chickens, too. Chicken coops also are fragrant. As much as the diners love the place, they probably haven't "walked in the homeowners' shoes" and thought about how it would feel to be living right next to all these problems and to see one's property value go down, down, down. It's a tough situation. I hope those who hold legal power over the solution consider all sides equally and try to seek the most-just solution. One last note, I am amazed at how uncivil people are, when they "chime in." People behave so amazingly rudely when they don't have to interact face-to-face and realize they are making comments to real flesh-and-blood people. Public discourse sadly usually becomes uncouth virtual-world verbal brawl, which serves no purpose but to fan the flames of already uncivil behavior. The concept of civil debate barely exists anymore.
60
I have been a resident and employee in this immediate neighborhood for over twenty years. I know the people who live next door to the cafe and would just like to say that although the cafe is one of the most successful businesses that has been in the building and they do offer good food and a meeting place for the community, they should be held to the same standards for the DPD as any other business. It is poor planning to not fully research what you are zoned for when starting any business, at any location. I worked very closely with the DPD for many years as a state licensor and facilitated "plan reviews" for the State for other businesses. This is unfortunate and obviously is bringing out strong emotions on both sides of the issue but to continously call the Jones family degrading names is inappropriate and cruel. They have a right to ask that the zoning laws be followed without being subjected to negative assumptions and hatred from their neighbors and the patrons of the restaurant. This is NOT a good reflection on the business owners that after being asked on many occasions in a polite and reasonable fashion to not have patrons' dogs poop in their yard and be tied to their trees, to not have their flowers crushed repeatedly by their hose, to not have rats running over their fence from the overflowing and inadequate dumpsters, to not have their driveway blocked repeatedly, or to not be able to enjoy a quiet night out in their backyard garden which has been tended and cared for by them because the restaurant is now planning to run a very large Bar-B-Cue till 9 p.m. each night with clean up after and all the noise and parking that this will add too. Why would you all be so quick to judge our neighbors who have contributed to this community for over 20 years! They are members of the local church and have volunteered in the elementary school for years! They are modest and kind people who have worked their whole lives to build a home and raise their three beautiful children in this community and they have never done a thing to any of you but contribute to this neighborhood! When I was told I would die of cancer this neighbor that you are all so quick to attack spent months training to walk in my honor for 60 miles to help raise awareness for Breast Cancer because that is the kind of person that she is! I love this neighborhood and this family and you should all be ashamed by your privelged attitudes to judge others, you have no right and should let the DPD the business owners and the Jones family sort this out in a civil and respectful manner. Your anger should be directed elsewhere!
61
Although we have enjoyed the food at the Volunteer Park Cafe, it has outgrown the current location. With the increasing success of the restaurant, there has been an increase in trucks and traffic down the narrow streets of this neighborhood. With the increase in traffic, there has been the accompanying accidents. In addition to the truck-crunching-parked-car accidents, we have also had two neighborhood children hit by cars over the past few years. My concern is the increasing traffic will increase the number of vehicle accidents as well as increase the risk of accidents involving people of all ages. The restaurant would be better-situated in an area that has more parking, and more street capacity for handling the increased traffic.
62
I think they should just settle it all by giving him unlimited free food!
63
A LOT OF MISINFORMATION.

Many of the posts above refer to the cafe's 7- or 12- or 15-years in business as a reason that VPC should be allowed to stay a cafe. Not true.

VPC opened 3 years ago. WHERE DID THESE POSTER GET THE IDEA VPC HAD BEEN OPERATING FOR 12 OR 15 YEARS? That is just wrong.

Many previous tenants operated cafes, but the space had no kitchen. The lack of a kitchen significantly limited the amount of impact to the neighborhood.

Three years ago, VPC added a kitchen before they opened for business. They did so without a permit from the city. The illegal kitchen allowed VPC to offer what previous cafes could not: full restaurant service.

VPC also pulled out the cold case that gave previous tenant the right to say they were operating a grocery.

THUS:
-VPC illegally changed the use of their business space without applying for permitting or zoning to do so.

IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BELIEVE that the owners opened their cafe "in good faith" and risk being "punished for the sins of their predecessors." That statement is eyes wide shut, and if you still believe it, you are not open to reason.

-Because of their illegal kitchen, VPC has more than doubled their business in the time they have been open.

VPC's success does not negate their neighbors right to legitimate concerns. It's our street, too. If anything, we have more legal standing. I don't know a single neighbor who breaks the laws simply by opening their doors every morning.


Please wait...

Comments are closed.

Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.


Add a comment
Preview

By posting this comment, you are agreeing to our Terms of Use.