Loading...
7A - Use Review #LUR2001-00059, restaurant, 16th and Pearl StreetsCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: May 2, 2002 (Agenda Item Preparation Date: April 25, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Continuation of public hearing and consideration of an appeal of Use Review #LUR2001- 00059 for a restaurant over 1,500 square feet in a new building at the northeast comer of 16th and Pearl Streets. The restaurant would be 4,000 square feet in size with a basement storage area of 1,300 square feet. The restaurant would have a maximum of 135 interior seats and a maximum of 45 exterior seats. Applicant: Jeff Kozak Owner: 1601 Pearl Street LLC Appellants: Crystal Gray, Vicki Naber, and Brian Smith REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning Department Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Review Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter OVERVIEW: At the April 4, 2002 meeting, the Ptanning Board voted (5-1; M. Cowles opposed, and J. Spitzer was absent) to continue consideration of the 1601 Pearl Street Use Review to the May 2, 2002 Planning Board meeting. The Planning Board is being asked to consider an appeal of a Planning Department Notice of Disposition for a Use Review issued on Febniary 13, 2002. The disposition was Cor an approval, with conditions, of a restaurant over 1,500 square feet in size in the RB2-3~ zoning district. The priroary basis for tl~e appea] by Crysta] Gray, Vicki Naber, and Brian Sinith is that the size of Uie restaurant is too lar~e and the number of seats are too many for a property abutting a residential zone, and that the conditions would not prevent employee parking in the residential parking district. s:\plan\ph-items\memos\eh1601pear15202ur AGN:ND.4 ITF.N1 # 7A Pnce 1 BACKGROUND: The applicant has applied for a building permit to construct a two-story, 10,750 square foot by- right building. The building would have a restaurant on the first floor, 3,990 square feet of offices on the second floor, and a 1,300 square foot storage basement. The applicant, Jeff Kozak, proposes to open an Italian restaurant and deli named Vetta, on the first floar of 1601 Pearl Street. The restaurant concept is based on an existing Chicago restaurant concept (partly owned by Kozak) and is described in the applicanYs written statements. Background information for this project is included in the Apri14, 2002 staff inemorandum to the Planning Board, in Attachment A. Apri14, 2002 Planning Board Meeting At the April 4, 2002 meeting, the Board heazd presentations from Planning staff, the applicant, the appellant, and held a public hearing. Planning Board discussed parking enforcement issues, impacts from the proposed number of seats in the restaurant, the possibility of restricting the use review to the applicant, and whether the use review criteria have been met. The Board also discussed concerns about the catering portion of the restauranYs operations, the need for a more specific Travel Demand Management program, and the possibility of reducing the size and/or seating of the proposed restaurant. The Board continued this item to May 2, 2002 (5-1; M. Cowles opposed, and J. Spitzer was absent). Mr. Cowles opposed the motion because he did not think that the application met the use review criteria, and the proposal lacked compatibility with the nearby properties and is not consistent with the zoning for this transitional district. A draft summary of the Planning Board's comments during the Board Discussion portion of the meeting is included in Attachment B., Revised Project Description Since the Apri14°i meeting, the applicant, Jeff Kozak, has revised the use review proposal (see Attachment C). Tl~c rcvised proposal includes: • A reduction in the total first floor size of the restaurant from 5,460 to 4,000 square feet. The proposed basement storage area remains 1,3UU square feet. • A reduction in the size of'the seating area from 3,450 to 2,500 square feet. • A reduction in the maximum number of indoor seats from 165 to 135. • A reduction in the maximum number of exterior seats from 50 to 45. • A revised written statement describing the restaurant concept. • A new Good Neighbor Plan, including policies on parking, noise, alcohol, trash, recycling, and community feedback. PUBLIC COMNIENT AND PROCESS: A summary of the public comments received and copies of the correspondence received are included in the April 4, 2002 staffinemorandum to the Planning Board (Attachment A). A written response from the appellants to the applicanYs revised proposal is included as Attachment D. s\plan\pb-items\meinos\eh 1601pear15202ur AGEND.A iTEM # 7A P:~ee ? STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staffls analysis of the applicable use review criteria is found in Attachment A, Use Review Criteria Checklist, and the Analysis section of the Apri14, 2002 staff inemorandum to the Planning Board. In this analysis, staff finds that the recommended conditions of approval minimize the impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood by limiting the restauranYs size, hours of operation, and operating characteristics. Staff also finds that a restaurant, with hours and operating characteristics as proposed, provides a more compatible transition between the adjacent business and residential zoning districts than some of the potential by-right uses, such as bars and tavems (smaller than 1,500 square feet woutd not require use review}. The applicant's revised proposal reduces the size of the restaurant. While the size of the reduction is likely to minimally change the restauranYs impacts to the surrounding area and nearby residential neighborhood, they may result in some reduction in parking and noisa impacts. Therefore, staff's original finding of compliance with the use raview criteria remains applicable to this revised application. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Use Review #LUR2001-00059 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the April 4, 2002 staff inemorandum, with the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist, as findings of fact, and using the following recommendad conditions of approval. Recommended Conditions of Approval Staff has revised the list of recommended conditions of approval (lis4ed below) based on the Board's Apri14'~' discussion and the applicanYs revised proposal. These changes are reflected in strike-tl~rough and boldface text. Since a revised floar plan reflecting the rcvised new restaurant size has not been submitted, a condition requiring a final floor plan prior to building permit issuance has been added as Condition No. 2. The changes to Condition l.b. (days of the week) correct ~ st~ff error in the previous memorlndum. RECOA4MENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be i^ compliance with all approved plans dated October 8, 2001 and written statements dated October 17, 2001, ar~d-November 30, 2001, ~nd Apri125, 2002, inclading the Apri125, 2002 Good Neighbor Plan, on file in lhe city of Boulder Pllnnin~ Deparlment ~nd subsequent approv~ls reguired by this ~pproval . Furtl~er, the Applicant shall ensure that tUe restaurant is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. Size of the restaeirant shall be limited to 3~8 4,000 square feet, with a basement storage area of I,300 square feet. The seating area in the restaurant, exclusive of the food display area, shall not exceed 3~59 2,500 square feet with a maximum of -i~-5 ]35 interior seaCS. There shall be a maximum of39-45 exferior seats. s:~plan\pb-items\memos\eh1601pearl5~p?in AGF.ND.A ITF,M # 7A Y:iee 3 b. Normal hours of operation shall be ] 0:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. ~4er~a~-Sunday through Thursday, and 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Friday and Saturday; c. The restaurant floor plan shall include kitchen and food preparation areas, food display areas, seating areas, and ancillary service areas, including, but not limited to, restrooms, stairs, and elevator, as shown on the approved floor plans dated October 8, 2001. d. Live music performances shall not be permitted. e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; Outdoor eating areas shall have no outdoor speakers. 2. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the Applicant shall submit a final floor plan which meets the size and seating limitations described in Conditiou No. 1, subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. 2 3. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use or the approved floor plan, including outdoor seating areas, except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C.1981. 4. This approval is limited to Jeff Kozak, the owner of the proposed restaurant and deli named "Vetta." Any changes in ownership shall be subject to the review and approval of the Planning Director. The purpose of such review shall be to inform such subsequent user of this space th~t it will be required to operate the restaurant in compli~nce with the terms of this approval. ~ 5. The outdoor seating areas, as shown on the approved plans, that project into the public right-of-way must be approved as a revocable right-of-way permit pursuant to Section 8- 6-6, B.R.C. 1981. This use review approval shall not be construed as au approval of such encroachment. 4 6. Yrior to requesting a final inspection, the Applicant shall provide and implement a plan, subject to the review and approval of tl~e llirector of Public Works, that encourages restaurant employees to use altemate modes of transportation from single occupant vehicle use; encourages employee use of off-street parking areas in commercial zoning dislricts or parking spaces managed by the Central Area General Improvement District; and discourages employees fi•om parking on the on-street parking spaces within tl~e surrounding residential neighborhood. Approved By: ~~~~ Peter Pollock, Director Planning Department s:\pl~n\pb-items\inemos~eh1601pe~r15202ur AGF,NDA 1TF.M # 7A Pnee 4 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Staff inemorandum to the Planning Board regarding 1601 Pearl Street Use Review for Apri14, 2002 meeting Attachment B: Draft summary of Planning Board comments at Apri14, 2002 meeting re: 1601 Pearl Street Use Review Attachment C: ApplicanYs Revised Proposal, dated Apri125, 2002 Attachment D: Appeliants' Response to Revised Proposal s:\plan\pb-itemsltuemos\e6 ( 60 i pead5202ur.doc s:Apl~nApb-ilems\memos~eh1601pear15202ur AGH:NDAI'fEM#i 7.4 Pnee 5 tii ir~~..tai~ai:i~ i n CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: April 4, 2002 (Agenda Item Prepazation Date: March 19, 2002) AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of an appeal of Usa Review #LUR2001-00059 for a restaurant over 1,500 square feet in a new building at the northeast corner of 16th and Pearl Streets. The restaurant would be 5,460 squaze feet in size with a basement storage area of 1,300 square feet. The restaurant would have a maximum of 165 interior seats and a maximum of 50 exterior seats. Applicant: Jeff Kozak Owner: 1601 Pearl Street LLC Appeilants: Crysta] Gray, Vicki Naber, and Brian Smith REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Planning bepartment Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Director of Land Use Reviaw Elizabeth Hanson, Presenter OVERVIEW: The Planning Board is being asked to consider an appeal of a Planning Department Notice of Disposition for a Use Review issued on February 13, 2002. The disposition was for an approval, with conditions, of a restaurant over 1,500 square feet in size in the RE2-X zoning district. The primary basis for the appeal by Crystal Gray, Vicki Naber, and Brian Smith is that the size of the restaurant is too large and the number of seats are too many for a property abutting a residantial zone, and that the conditions would not prevent employee parking in the residential parking district. Agenda Item #~_ Page #~~ s:\plan\pb-itams~nemos\eh 1601 pearlur STATISTICS: Proposal: USE REVIEW: For a restaurant over 1,500 square feet in a new building at the northeast corner of 16th and Pearl Streets. The restaurant would be 5,460 square feet in size with a basement storage area of 1,300 squaze feet. The restaurant would have a maximum of 165 interior seats and a maximum of 50 exterior seats. There are no requested variations to the land use regulations. Project Name: Location: Size of Tract: Zoning: Comprehensive Plan: KEY ISSUE: 1601 Pearl Street Use Review 1601 Pearl Street 7,036 square feet RB2-X (Regional Business Two-Redeveloping) Regional Business Would the location, size, design, and operating chazacteristics of the proposed restaurant be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the nearby residential neighborhood? BACKGROUND: Existing Site / Site Context The project site is the northeast corner of 16`h and Pearl Streets. An existing building which formerly housed a non-conforming auto repair business was recently demolished. The site is zoned RB2-X and is surrounded by other RB zoned properties, except across the alley to the north where it abuts a residential neighborhood zoned MXR-E (Mixed Used Residential - Established). A vicinity map with zoning is in Attachment B. The site is located in the Central Area General Improvement District (CAGID), the downtown parking district. Therefore, there is no off-street parking requirement. This portion of Peazl Street has evolved over the past several years into a vihrant mix of retail stores, restaurants, and cafes. Recent redevelopment projects have changed the character and the intensity of development, including mixed use residential and office/retail projects. As this area redevelops, residents of nearby downtown neighborhoods have perceived increasing impacts. Noise, overflow parking on neighborhood streets, and the behavior of intoxicated bar patrons are some of the concerns that have been expressed. Agenda Item #~~ Page # 7 s: \plan\pb-items~nemos\eh 1601 pearlur These neighborhood impacts were the impetus for amendments to the city's land use regulations in the mid to late 1990's to require certain restaurants and taverns be permitted only with use review approval in downtown business districts. Restaurants or taverns over 1,500 square feet in floor area or which close after 11:00 p.m. must receive use review approva] in the RB2-X zoning district. The applicanYs proposed restaurant exceeds the by-right size limitation and therefore requires use review approval. Project Description The applicant has applied for a building permit to construct a two-story, 1 Q750 square foot by- right building. The building would have a 5,460 square foot restaurant on the first floor, 3,990 square feet of offices on the second floor, and a 1,300 square foot storage basement. The Downtown Design Advisory Board has reviewed the building design. The only portion of the project subject to discretionary review is the restaurant use, which is the subject of this use review. Staff did not review the exterior building design as part of the use review application. The applicant, Jeff Kozak, proposes to open an Italian restaurant and deli named Vetta, on the first floor of 1601 Pearl Street. The restaurant concept is based on an existing Chicago restaurant concept (partly owned by Kozak) and is described in the applicanYs written statements (see Attachment F). The floor plan varies from traditional restaurants in that menu items are displayed for customers' selection. Also, since all bread and pastas are made on the premises, a larger kitchen area is required. The proposed restaurant would include a maximum of 165 interior seats and a maximum of 50 exterior seats. Seating areas are shown on the proposed floor plan (see Attachment F). The outdoor seating areas would abut Pearl and 16`h Streets. There is no separate bar area proposed in the floor plan. The applicant has indicated that beer and wine (no hard liquor) will be served on the premises with food only. The applicant has also indicated that he intends to apply for a full liquor license so that he may obtain additional liquor licenses in the future. Please note that use review, as a zoning review, cannot regulate liquor sales. Staff has advised neighborhood residents that concerns about liquor sales would best be addressed to the city's Liquor Board when a liquor license is under review. Appeal of Planning Department Approval The Planning Department issuad a Notice of Disposition for this use review for approval, with conditions, on February 13, 2002, finding that the application met the applicable use review criteria. On February 27, 2002, the decision was appealed by three residenis ofthe Whittier neighborhood. The primary basis for the appeal by Crystal Gray, Vicki Naber, and Brian Smith is that the size of the rastaurant is too large and the number of seats are too many for a property abutting a residential zone, and that the conditions would not prevent employee parking in the residential parking district. Therefore, the April 4, 2002 hearing of the Planning Board is a hearing de novo. Agenda Item #~_ page #__~ s:\plan\pb-items~snemos\eh 1601 pearlur ANALYSIS: Planning staff's analysis of the applicable use review criteria is found in Attachment A, Use Review Criteria Checklist. The key issue identified by staff for this review is discussed in detail below. Would the location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed restaurant be reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the nearby residential neighborhood? Restaurant Size and Operatin~ Characteristics The proposed restaurant size is allowed in the RB2-X zoning district only if the use review criteria are met. One cannot determine whether a specific restaurant size or number of restaurant seats is acceptable without assessing the resulting impacts. During this use review, staff carefully considered the noise, parking, and other potential impacts that might result from the proximity of the proposed restaurant to the adjacent neighborhood. The main focus of the review was an analysis of the applicanYs restaurant proposal concept to determine the compatibility of the restaurant's size and operating characteristics with the adjacent Whittier neighborhood. The proposed operating characteristics (until 10:30 p.m. on weekdays and 11:00 p.m. on weekends) seem appropriate for a restaurant located near residences. Also, neighborliood residents have indicated that the proposed hours of operation and limitations on live music and outdoor speakers would be acceptable. Based on the restaurant concept, hours, and noise limitations, staff finds that the operating characteristics would meet the use review criteria and have minimal impact on the residential neighborhood. When the Planning Department approval was appealed, the appellants stated that the size of the restaurant is too large, the number of seats are too many for a property abutting a residential zone, and suggested a restaurant size of 3,000 square feet. It is uncleaz which neighborhood impacts would be minimized by a change in size of this particular restaurant, given the recommended conditions. Because adequate commercial district parking is available, the proposed hours of operation are reasonable, and exterior noise would be limited, then expected neighborhood impacts for this restaurant aze not likely to be reduced by a reduction in restaurant size. Staff finds that the proposed restaurant size is acceptable, not based only on its size, but because the recommended conditions would minimize neighborhood impacts sufficiently to comply with the use review criteria. Parkin~ Impacts Regarding the parking issue, staff drafted a condition (recommended Condition No. 4) as a Travel Demand Management (TDM) strategy to help encourage restaurant employees to use alternate modes of transportation and to discourage them from parking on the surrounding neighborhood streets. While this does not specifically prohibit an employee from parking on neighborhood streets, it would be difficult to enforce a condition which s:\plan\pb-items~memos\eh1601pearlur Agellda It01n #1~ Pag¢ #~ requires a restaurant owner to guarantee that employees are parking only in the commercial area. As the appellants state and staff agrees, there is ample parking available in the nearby public and private parking.gazages. Also, all downtown employees are eligible for EcoPasses. There is an existing neighborhood permit parking district in place for the immediate neighborhood streets. Neighborhood concerns may bast be addressed by continued enforcement of the neighborhood permit parking district. Recommended Conditions of Apnroval Following a January 7'h neighborhood meeting and before issuing a decision, one month of review time was spent crafting and revising conditions of approval to respond to neighborhood comment. Given the limitation that the use review could not regulate liquor sales characteristics (e.g. "there shalt be no separate bar area" was not allowable), creative conditions were developed to express the intent of the restaurant operation. For example, the approva] was specifically tied to the floor plan and ffie size of the seating area. Conditions o£ approval - addressing the hours of operation, no live music, etc. - were written with the intent of minimizing noise and parking impacts. Staff's recommended conditions of approval aze listed in the Recommendation section below. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCESS: Planning staff received public comment on this application from several residents of the adjacent Whittier Neighborhood and the owner of the adjacent Cobum Hotel. As required by the land use regulations for restaurants permitted by use review, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting on January 7, 2002 at Whittier Elementary School. Fourteen neighborhood residents, the Planning Department case manager, and the applicanYs uchitect, J Midyette, attended the meeting. Jeff Kozak and J Midyette described the proposal to the attendees, including a detailed description of the restaurant concept. The discussion between the applicant and the neighbors addressed the £ollowing topics: • Types of ]iquor sales planned for the restaurant, • Potential for noise after 11:00 p.m., • Outdoor seating (no outdoor speakers), • Concerns about live music and/or dancing as a late night use, • Miscellaneous restaurant impacts: deliveries, exhaust fumes, • City enforcement of neighborhood parking permits/employee parking on neighborhood streets, • Concerns about too many restaurants in the immediate area, and • Construction schedule. Correspondence received is included as Attachment D. Statements by the appellants are in Attachment E. Required public notice was given in the form of written notifications of the application and neighborhood meeting mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2 and Section 9-3.4-19, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. Agenda Item #-'J~ page #~ s: \plan\pb-itemsUnemos\eh l 601 pearlur STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that the proposed restaurant at 1601 Pearl Street meets the applicable use review criteria. The recommended conditions of approval minimize the impacts to the nearby residential neighborhood by limiting the restauranYs size, hours of operation, and operating characteristics. Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board approve Use Review #LUR2001-00059 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact, and using the following recommended conditions of approval. Agenda Item #~_ Page # /~ s:\plan\pb-itemstrnemos\eh I 601 peadur RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Applicant shatl be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated October 8, 2001 and written statements dated October 17, 2001 and November 30, 2001 on file in the city of Boulder Planning Department. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the restaurant is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. Size of the restaurant shall be limited to 5,460 square feet, with a basement storage azea of 1,300 square feet. The scating area in the restaurant, exclusive of the food display area, shall not exceed 3,450 square feet with a maximum of 165 interior seats. There shall be a maximum of 50 exterior seats. b. Normal hours of operation shall be 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday, and 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; c. The restaurant floor plan shall include kitchen and food preparation areas, food display areas, seating areas, and ancillary service areas, including, but not ]imited to, restrooms, stairs, and elevator, as shown on the approved floor plans dated October 8, 2001. d. Live music performances shall not be permitted. e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containers betwean the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; f. Outdoor eating areas shall have no outdoor speakers. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use or the approved floor ptan, including outdoor seating areas, except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C.1981. The outdoor seating areas, as shown on the approved ptans, that project into the pubtic right-of-way must be approved as a revocable right-of-way permit pursuant to Section 8- 6-6, B.R.C. 1981. This use review approval shall not be construed as an approval of such encroachment. 4. Prior to requesting a final inspection, the Applicant shall provide and implement a plan, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works, that encourages restaurant employees to use alternate modes of transportation from single occupant vehicle use; enconrages employee use of off-street parking areas in commercial zoning districts or parking spaces managed by the Central Area General Improvement District; and discourages employees from parking on tha on-street parking spaces within the sunounding residential neighborhood. Approved By: ~ ) . ` eter Pollock,-~ -- Planning Department Agenda Item # '~~ Page # /Z. s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh 1601 pearlur ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Use Review Criteria Checklist Attachment B: Vicinity Map Attachment C: Planning Department Notice of Disposition dated February - 13, 2002 Attachment D: Correspondence Received Attachment E: Appellants' Written Statements Attachment F: Applicants' Proposed Plans and Written Statement s:\plan\pb-i[em s~memos\eh l 601 peadur.doc Agenda Item #~_ Page # /~ s:\plan\pb-itemsUnemos\eh1601 pearlur ATTACHMENT A USE REVIEW CRITERIA CHECKLIST* 1601 PEARL STREET (d) Criteria for Review: No use review application will be approved unless the approving agency finds all of tha following: (1) Consistencv with Zonine and Non-Conformitv: The use is consistent with the purpose of the zoning district as set forth in Section~9-2-1, "Zoning Districts Established," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; RB2-X is a"business area providing a mid-level transition area between the higher intensiCy downtown commercial area and surrounding streets and lower intensiry residential area. Retail uses are typicallyfound on theground floor level with residential or o~ce uses located above the ground level. " The proposed 1601 Pearl Street project includes a restaurant on the graund floor level with office uses above. The proposed use review use, the restaurant, is consistent with the purpose of the RB2-X zoning district. (2) RaCionale: The use eiYher: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the sunounding uses or neighborhood; The proposed restaurant would provide the surrounding neighborhood with a convenient place to eat out or take out food within walking or biking distance. (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; A restaurant, with hours and operating characteristics as proposed, provides a more compatible transition between ihe adjacent business and residential zoning districts than so»ae of the potential by-right uses, such as bars and taverns (smaller tlzan 1,500 sguare feet would not require use review). The restuurant concept and I1:00 pm. closing time proi~ides a transition behveen more intensive uses in the commercial district and the adjacent neighborhood. (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and Agenda Item #'~ Page #~_ s: \pl an\pb-items\memos\eh 1601 pearlur non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or The proposed restaurant use fosters the complementary mix of uses between downtown neighborhood districts and downtown commercial districts. (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (e) of this section; (3) Compatibilitv: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be reasonably compatible with and have minima] negative impact on the use of nearby properties; Please see the analysis section of the staff inemorandum to the Planning Board for discussion of this criterion. (4) InFrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-3.1-1, "Schedule of Permitted Uses of Land," B.R.C. 1981, in the zone, or as compared to the existing level of impact of a non-conforming use, the proposed development will not significantly adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding area, including, without limitation, water, wastewater, and storm drainage utilities and streets; and The proposed development is adequately served by existing streets aiid aitility se~vices and will not significantly adverse the infrastructure of the surrounding area. (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area. A new restaurant use is consistent with the character of this portion ofPearl Street, with its mix of restaurants, retail stores, and o~ces. The restaurant would be in an area of the neighborhood which is predominantly businesses, and bordered on the north by residences. (6) Conversion of Dwellin~ Units to Non-Residential Uses: There shall be a presumption against approving the conversion of dwelling units in the residential zoning districts set forth in Subsection 9-3.1-1(a), B.R.C. 1981, to non-residentia] uses that are allowed pursuant Yo a use review, or througb tbe change of one non-conforming use to another non-conforming use. The presumption against such a conversion may be overcome by a finding that the use to be approved serves another compelling social, human services, governmental, or recreational need in the community including, without limitation, a use for a day care center, park, religious assembly, social service use, benevolent organization use, art or craft studio space, museum, or an edueationa] use. Agenda Item #~_ page # ~'~ s:\plan\pb-items\memos\eh 1601pearlur No existing dwelling units would be converted as a result of this applicatia:. *These use criteria reflect the land use regulation amendments adopted by Ciry Cotuicil on March 5, 2002. The amendments included the addition of a new No. 6 to the use review criteria, Conversion ofDwelli~ Urrits to Nwr-Residential Uses. This rtew criterion is not applicable to the 1601 Pearl Street use review request. Agenda Item #~_ Page # ~~i s: \plan\pb-items\memos\eh 1601 pearlur r.i an~,nivlC,~v~ u ` ~i / ~ ~ ~i '~ ~.~^ ~ Z /~ RB1-E y `~~R~ ~ MA~~.. /, .~ W a Z _ ; .-...T-^.~' ~ P-E R 6 1 -X 5UBJECT PRbPERTY 7 BD~ PEARL ST ~ a z / pN G P'~y~ -E GROVE ST ~ s Location: 7601 Pearl Si ~,,p~, Review Type: Use Review ~ °~ ProjectName: 1601 PearlStRestaurant 1;3600 ~p~~~k c~ere~~o~s N ~..~.~...a,..,...~.,.. Review Number: LUR2001-00059 '"""'"""°'"`""°'°°"°` n~ em a ew~w nv..nn ro wmny. . ~ pYwFqW.wOMeO~tY Applicant: Jeff Kozak ~,:,:;,~ .^~M ^°^~-n P~~ PR~c~. RB - -E Y ~,: i i\ y \~ ' ~_ ~1+'~`\ r ~~ 1 X R, .mP~~~~ ~ 3 ~~~~ey~'" us 5T ' W P~'%~ ~. Agencla Item # '~ _ page #~'~ ATTACHMENT C ~~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 8D306-0791 phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderp~andevelop.net CfTY OF BOULDER PLANN(NG DEPARTMENT' NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the standards and criteria of the Land Use Regulations es set forth in Chapter 9-4, B.R.C. 1981, as applieil to the proposed development. DECISION: Approval, with conditlons PROJECT NAME: 18D1 Pearl Street Use Review DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW: For a restaurant over 150D square feet in a new building at the nartheast corner of 16th and Peerl Streets. The restaura~t would be 5,460 square faet in size with a basement storege area of 1,300 square feet. The restaurant would have a maximum of 165 interlqr seats and a maximum of 50 exterior seata. LOCATION: 1601 PEARL ST COOR: N03W06 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Block 92, Boulder Original Town, County of Boulder, Colorado APPLICANT: JEPF KOZAK OWNER: 1601 PEARL STREET LLC APPLICATION: Use Revlew Case # LUR2001-00059. ZONING: R82•X (Regional Buslness Two-Redeveloping) CASE MANAGER~ Liz Hanson VESTED PROPERTY RIGHT: NO; the owner has walved the opportunity to create such right under Section 9-A-12, B.R.C. 19B1. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION Approved on: „r, ~~~~ I .yl' ~OOZ Ci~~/ ~ ~_ By: Peter Pollock, Planning Director This decision mey be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning Department within twa weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be deemed final fouAeen days after the date above mentioned. Appeal to Planning Baard expires: ~7~~af Z7 ~~Z Agenda Item #~ Page #~ _ IN ORDER FOR A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJHCT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNE~ MYLAR PIANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CON~ITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS N~T SIGNED WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Pursuant to Section 9-4-8 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, '1981), the applicant must begin and substantially complete the appfoved development within three years from the date of final. Failure to "sudstantially compiete" (as defned in Section 9-4-B) the development within lhree years shall cause ihis development approval to expire. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that -he developme~t shall he in compliance with all approved plans dated October 8, 2001 and written statements dated Octaher 17, 2001 and November 30, 2001 on file in thr City of Boulder Planning Department. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the restaurant is opetated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. Size of the restaurant shell be limited to 5,460 square feet, with a basement storage area of 1,300 square feet. The seating area in the restaurant, exclusive of the food display area, shall not exceed 3,450 squarc feet with a maximum af 165 interior seats. There shali be a maximum of 50 exterior seats. b. Normal hours of operation shall 6e 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 10:30 a.m. ta 11:00 p.m. Salurqay and Sunday, c. The restaurant floor plan shall include kitchen and food preparation areas, food display areas, seating areas, and anci~lary service arees, including but not limited to restrooms, stairs, and elevator, as shown a~ ~ the approved floor plans dated October 8, 2001. d. Live music performances shall not be permitted. e. Trash and bottles shali not be removed to outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; f. Outtloor eating areas shall have no outdoor speakers. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use or the approved floor plan, including outda-- seating areas, except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C. 1981. 3. The outdoor seating areas, as shown on the approved plans, that project into the public right-of-way must be approved as a revocabte right-af-way permit pursuant to Sectiort 8-6-6, B.R.C. 1981. This use review approval shall not be construed as an approval of such encroachment. Prior to requesting a final inspection, the Applicant shall provide and implement a plan, suhject to the review and approval of the Director of Public W orks, that: encourages restaurant employees to use alternate modes of transportation from single occupant vehicle use; encourages employee use of off-street parking areas in commercial zoning distriets or parking spaces managed by the Central Area General Improvement pistrict; and discourages employees from parking on •the on-street parking spaces within the surcounding residential neighborhootl. Agenda Item #~~_ page #~_ Adtlress: 1fi01 PEARL 5T ATTACHMENT D Elizabeth Hanson - RE: Use review appiication at 1601 Pearl St. From: Crystal Gray <CGray@co.adams.co.us> To: 'Elizabeth Hanson' <HansonL@ci.boulder.co.us> Date: 11/13/2001 228 PM Subject: RE: Use review application at 1601 Pearl St. Liz...l wanted to let you know that I received the info in the mail on Saturday..we discussed it at our Mon. meeting and I will get you the comments in the next day or so...thanks for putting that in the mail for us! Crysta I > -~~-•Original Message-~--~ > From: Elizabeth Hanson [SMTP:HansonL@ci.boulder.co.us] > Sent: Friday, November 09, 2001 11:49 AM > To: CGray@co.adams.co.us > Cc: Bob Cole > Subject: Use review application at 1601 Pearl St. > > Hi Crystal, > > This week we received a use review application for a restaurant (over 1500 > sq. ft. in size and with outdoor seating areas) in a new building at the > northeast corner of 16th and Pearl Streets. I have a packet of the > applicant's plans and written statement available for the Whittier > neighborhood's review. Would you like me to send the plans in the mail to > your home address or would you or a neighbor like to pick them up at the > Park Central Building, 3rd floor? (Please note that we are closed Monday > 11/12 for Veteran's Day). Initial city comments are due to the applicant > on Friday, 11/23. > > Liz Hanson > Senior Planner > City of Boulder Planning Dept. > 303-4413287 Agenda Item #~_ Page #~ file://C:IWINDOWSITEMP\GW } 00009.HTM Elizabeth Hanson - RE: Draft 2 disposition for 1601 Pearl Use Review From: Crystal Gray <CGray@co.adams.co.us> To: 'Elizabeth Hanson' <HansonL@ci.boulder.co.us>, Crystal Gray <CGray@co.adams.co.us>, Crystal Gray <crystal_boulder@hotmail.com> Date: 2/13/2002 7:57 AM Subject: RE: Draft 2 disposition for 1601 Pearl Use Review CC: <bmwstsmt@aol.com>, <Pine1813@aol.com>, David Gehr <GehrD@ci.boulder.co.us>, <david.newman@colorado.edu>, <cjarden@earthnet.net>, <mariamrichmond@hotmail.com>, <mimdixon@hotmail.com>, <vnaber@msn.com>, <vnaberl@qwest.net>, "'spitzer@ayayale.edu"' <spitzer@aya.yale.edu> Hello Liz: We discussed this draft at the Monday night Whittier meeting. Following are comments: 1. There is a discrepancy in the number of interior seats. On the first page "notice of Disposition" 150 seats are listed. On the second page "conditions of approval", 1, a, 165 interior seats are listed. We prefer the lower number. 2. Under conditions of approval, 4, we feel that parking is such a huge problem now with out this restaurant that "encourages" should be changed to something enforceable. A suggestion could be-'if parking is not enforced and spaces are not available to residents the city will restrict night time parking to residents only after 6 p.m.'. We also suggest that the building owner, who also owns the 15th and Spruce garage, be mandated to provide parking for the employees of this restaurant. That might be 20 spaces a. night. 3. We are still concerned about the size of this restaurant. The owner said it will be a high turnover operation, which means a higher impact on the adjacent property owners. The smaller restaurants in the neighborhood seem to have a lower impact and in fact seem to be more stable and sustainable. The larger ones seem to go out of business. 4. We suggest that information be gathered about the size of the existing restaurants on Pearl from 15th to 18th. This would be helpful in decision making for this an in the future. Thank you Liz and David for taking our comments into consideration for this Notice Disposition. Crystal Gray 303~909-1445 cell -~~~~Original Message~~-~~ From: Elizabeth Hanson [_mailto_HansonL ci.boulder.co.usl Sent: Monday, February 04, 2002 12:19 PM To: CGray@co.adams.co.us; Crystal Gray Cc: bmwstsmt@aol.com; Pine1813@aol.com; David Gehr; Elizabeth Hanson; david.newman@colorado.edu; cjarden@earthnet.net; mariamrichmond@hotmail.com; mimdixon@hotmail.com; vnaber@msn.com; vnaberl@qwest.net Subject: Re: Draft 2 disposition for 1601 Pearl Use Review Crystal, Thank you for the comments that you and your neighbors have shared with me Agenda Item #~_ Page #~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM re: the draft disposition for the 1601 Pearl St. Use Review. After reviewing your comments and receiving additional information from the applicant, I have drafted a Draft 2 disposion (file attached and new conditions copied below). These revised conditions include more specific information regarding the restaurant size, seating area size, and maximum seating. Also, the conditions reference the applicanYs written statements which describe the restaurant concept. A newly worded Condition No. 4 addresses the parking issue more specifically. I appreciate your suggestion to tie the approval to the restaurant owner. However, use review is a process that generally regulates operating characteristics, rather than the characteristics of the operator. There have been some use reviews where conditions tied the approval to a specific owner; these are generally unique types of uses where the specific user is key to the approval. Please note that liquor license reviews address the character of the operator and might be the more appropriate venue to evaluate the business operator upon, for example, a change in restaurant use. More importantly, I am confident that the many operating characteristic details (including references to the applicanYs written statement) listed in these conditions would address the neighborhood's concerns (size, noise, hours, etc.) should another restaurant occupy 160I Pearl under this use review approval. I would be happy to discuss this Draft 2 with you. The applicant is also reviewing this version. Please share your comments with me by e-mail or phone (303-441~3287) as soon as possible. Thanks. Liz Hanson Senior Planner City ot Boulder Planning and Development Services REVISED DRAFT 2 CONDITIONS FOR 1601 PEARL ST USE REVIEW: 1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated October 8, 2001 and written statements dated October I7, 2001 and fVovember 30, 2001 on file in the City of Boulder Planning Department. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the restaurant is operated in compliance with the following restrictions: a. Size of the restaurant shall be limited to 5,460 square feet, with a basement storage area of 1,300 square feet. The seating area in the restaurant, exclusive of the tood display area, shail not exceed 3,450 square feet with a maximum of 165 interior seats. There shall be a maximum of 50 exterior seats. b. Normal hours of operation shall be 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; c. The restaurant floor plan shall include kitchen and food preparation areas, food display areas, seating areas, and ancillary service areas, including but not limited to restrooms, stairs, and elevator, as shown on the approved floor plans dated October 8, 2001. d. Live music performances shall not be permitted. e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00' a.m.; f. Outdoor eating areas shall have no outdoor speakers. Agenda Item #_~_ Page #~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM - 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use or the approved floor plan,including outdoor seating areas, except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C. 1981. 3. The outdoor seating areas, as shown on the approved plans, that project into the public right~of-way must be approved as a revocable right•of•way permit pursuant to Section 8~6•6, B.R.C. 1981. This use review approval shall not be construed as an approval of such encroachment. 4. Prior to requesting a final inspection, the Applicant shall provide and implement a plan, subject to the review and approval of the Director of Public Works, that: encourages restaurant employees to use alternate modes of transportation from single occupant vehicle use; encourages employee use of off~street parking areas in commercial zoning districts or parking spaces managed by the Central Area General Improvement District; and discourages employees from parking on the on~street parking spaces within the surrounding residential neighborhood. »> "Crystal Gray" <crystal_boulder@hotmail.com> O1/28/02 05:OOPM »> Liz...l got this out to Brian Smith, Vicki Naber and the Dixons. I will get it to the other neighbors tonight. A few comments from me: I) My first impression is for such a large'place we really need to tie approval to the owner and the concept they have. My reason is based on the Rio experience. They were about the same size as this, closed around the same time, served food and had a limited bar...yet they were totally out of control...mainly due to cheap food and strong drinks. When these people go out of business what is to prevent a change in menu and we have the Rio problem again. 2) Why not have parking also tied to the garage at 15tha and Spruce. That is owned by the owner of this building. Actually the employees of the Midyette~Reider developments are the ones parking in the neighborhood. So I would mention both garages and at least have some requirement where they 'shall' reach an agreement with the parking structure folks on parking (maybe for employees its free if they park there after 5 p.m.) 3) As I said above, I think that the more specific we are the better. I would come right out in the conditions and say there is no bar area, there are not to exceed xx seats in the restaurant, etc. I think if it is left to the site plan that things get overlooked by a future operator, the owner and the city staff that might be issuing permits. This recently happened with the Mellow Mushroom (it took over an existing restaurant space•Harvest~ that closed at midnight...it was suppossedly grandfathered in if it followed the previous operating conditions. No one was tracking this, permits were issued, and the restaurant stayed open to 2 am. Thank god it went under and the Gondolier is open until 11 pm). ! will torward other comments-I think you addressed a lot of concerns but lets try to get the rest. Thanks, Crystal Agenda Item # 7/~ Page # Z~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM >From: "Elizabeth Hanson" <HansonL@ci.boulder.co.us> >To: <cgray@co.adams.co.us>,<crystal_boulder@hotmail.com> >CC: "Elizabeth Hanson" <HansonL@ci.boulder.co,us> >Subject: Draft disposition for 1601 Peari Use Review >Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 16:26:57 •0700 > >Crystal, > >Attached is an MS Word file for the draft Notice of Disposition for the >1601 Pearl Use Review (the draft conditions are included in the e~mail >befow). Please share this draft with your Whittier neighbors. It took >longer than expected to draft this disposition because a creative solution >was needed to develop conditions which addressed the concerns of the >neighbors and the intent of the applicant. >As I mentioned at the neighborhood meeting, i needed to review with our >City Attorney's office to what extent use review conditions can address >liquor or bar restrictions. What I learned is that zoning regulations >cannot govern liquor sales. For example, a use review condition cannot >limit liquor sales to beer and wine; this can only be done by a liquor >license. If the neighborhood wishes to express concerns about a full >license, this would need to be done as part of the liquor license process. >Also, the conditions cannot state that a bar area will not be provided, >This led us to craft use review conditions that more specifically address >the proposed floor plans. In other words, the approval would state what IS >allowed, rather than what isn't. >The applicant is now reviewing this same draft. Changes to the condition >wording are expected. Please let me know if you have any questions. >Liz Hanson >Senior Planner >City of Boulder >Planning and Development Services >303-44132$7 >DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL • 1601 PEARL ST >1. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development >shall be in compliance with all approved plans dated October 8, 2001 and >written statements dated October 17, 2001 and November 30, 2001 on file in >the City of Boulder Planning Department. Further, the Applicant shall >ensure that the restaurant is operated in compliance with the following >restrictions: >a. Size of the restaurant shall be limited to 5,460 square feet. The >seating area and all other areas open to the public in the restaurant, >exclusive of the food display area, shaN not exceed _*add*_ square >feet. >b. Normal hours of operation shall be 20:30 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Monday >through Thursday and 10:30 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; >c. The restaurant fioor plan shali include kitchen and food Agenda Item #~_ Page #~ file://C:IWINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM preparation >areas,food display areas,seating areas, and ancillary service areas, >including but not limited to restrooms, stairs, and elevator, as shown on >the approved floor plans dated October 8, 2001. >d. Live music performances shall not be permitted. >e. Trash and bottles shall not be removed to outside trash containres >between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.; >f. Outdoor.eating areas sha~l have no outdoor speakers. > >2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use >or the approved floor plan, including outdoor seating areas, except >pursuant to Subsection 9~4•9(g), B.R.C. 1981. > >3. The outdoor seating areas, as shown on the approved plans, that >project into the public right•of~way must be approved as a revocable >right-of•way permit pursuant to Section 8•6•6, B.R.C. 1981. This use >review approval shall not be construed as an approval of such encroachment. > >4. The Applicant shall implement an ongoing program to encourage >restaurant employees to park in the nearby public parking garage at 15th >and Pearl Streets and to discourage restaurant employees from parking on >neighborhood residential streets. > > > >« 1601pearldisp.doc» MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: htt~_//~hotos. msn.com/support/worldwide.asox <http://photos :msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx> Agenda Item #~~ Page #~ file://C:\WINDOWS\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM Elizabeth Hanson - Re: 1601 pearl disposition - Draft 2 From: Elizabeth Hanson To: QDCom@aol.com bate: 2/4/2002 11:51 AM Subject: Re: 16'O1 pearl disposition - Draft 2 CC: Hanson, Elizabeth Jim, Thanks for your comments on the draft disposition for the 1601 Pearl St. Use Review . After receiving comments from neighbors and additional information from the applicant, attached is a proposed final (Draft 2) disposition. The revised conditions include more specific information regarding the size of and seating in the restaurant. While the conditions cannot cal! out a prohibition for parking in a specitic nearby off-street parking area (e.g. Coburn Hotel), I think the new Condition No. 4 deals with the parking issue in a more direct way. In addition, there are standard entorcement procedures that you can use should anyone but a hotel resident or employee use your off-street parking area. I hope this revised document better addresses your concerns, Please share any comments with me as soon as possible. Liz Hanson Senior Planner City of Boulder Planning and Development Services 303-441 ~3287 »> <QDCom@aol.com> O1/30/02 09:25AM »> dear liz: thank you for the e~mail. as an adjacent property owner (whose guests are typically asleep by 9:OOp), my main concern is noise. it appears that you have addressed that as well as possible though the disposition, i.e. trash removal ours, no live music, no outdoor speakers. however, our other issue is with the patrons/employees of the restaurant using our parking. as you know, we are NOT allowed to park anywhere other than on our own property in the 12 spaces provided. that means that if they use any of our spaces, we potentially will be in violation of our parking agreement with the city. is there anyway that your dept. can include restrictive language specific to the use (or non•use) of the coburn house parking within this disposition? it might make it easier to "enforce" if it is part of their agreement as well. please help if you can, liz.... sincerely, jim ~X-~AkVA{ndU,{N oae~\#b-_#To-/oo- ru.'%Q"'siK96§2nA?e=!1='=:Cr,C£,P$f11,~¥"is"5itr/oaeouYF=z-"idE Agenda Item #~_ Page #~ file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM Elizabeth Hanson - Re: 1601 pearl disposition - Draft 2 From: <QDCom@aol.com> To: <HansonL@ci.bouider.co.us> Date: 2/5/2002 10:42 AM Subject: Re: 1601 pearl disposition - Draft 2 dear liz: - thanks for your e-mail. my question is regarding #4. if you can state "discourages employees from parking on the on-street parking spaces within the surrounding residential neighborhood".....why can't you say, "discourages employees/patrons from parking on the on-street parking spaces within the surrounding residential neighborhood and the off-street commercial parking spaces provided across the alley at 2040 16th street."? the on-street parking in the surrounding residential neighborhood has the same enforecment remedies as i do, so i don't think their inclusion in #4 should limit our inclusion. can you help me with this? thanks, liz, for being so patient with me.... sincerely, jim Agenda Item #~_ Page #~~ file://C:\WINDOW S\TEMP\GW } 00009.HTM ATTACHMENT E APPEAL LETTER APPEAL OF DISPOSITION 1601 PEARL STREET USE REVIEW LUR2001-00059 TO: CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD LIZ HANSEN, PLANNER PETER POLT.OCK, PLANNING DIItECTOR BOB COLE, PLANNER FROM: WHITTIER NEIGHBORS: CRYSTAL GRAY VICKI NABER BRIAN SMITH DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2002 VIA FAX AND EMAIL RE: APPEAL OF DISPOSITION REGARDING 1601 PEARL STREET This is an appeal to the City of Boulder Planning Board regarding the `Notice of Disposition' for 1601 Pearl-#LUR2001-00059- THAT WAS ISSiJED ON February 13, 2002. We are appealing this because: • The size of the restaurant is too lazge for a property abutting a residential zone. It is proposed at 5,460 squaze feet with a basement storage azea of 1,300 square feet. We suggest 3000 square feet is a more appropriate number. Evan 3000 square feet is twice the number allowed use by right. . The numbers of seats aze too many for a property abutting a residential zone. It is proposed not to exceed 165 interior seats and 50 exterior seats. No where on the mall ground floor exterior are there 50 exterior seats in this zone. The interior seats should be reduced to fit a reduced square footage. Seating should not exceed 120 total interior and exterior. . The parking requirement has no teeth. It just says the applicant shal] `encourage' use of non-street parking etc. The DMC does minimal enforcement of the existing residential pazking district now. The parking district regulations and hours would need to be revised to accommodate the increased impacts in an already overparked residential zone. Please note that spaces are always available in the three garages nearby while the residential areas are overparked. Conditions 1(b), 1(d), 1(e) and 1(~ are fine. Please contact us and let us lrnow if you need additional information for this appeal. Vicki Naber 303-442-7594, Crystal Gray 303-449-9680, Brian Smith Agenda Item #_~~1___ Pa~e #_~~__ ATTACHMENT F RESPONSE TO: APPEAL LETTER APPEAL OF DISP03ITION 1601 PEARL STREET USE REVIEW LUR2001-00059 CITY OF BOULDER Resuonse Response Date: 14 March 2002 Response from: J Nold Midyette, Architect Agent for property ownership -1601 Pearl Street, LLC Agent for applicant - Jeff Kozak Response sent to: City of Boutder Planning Boazd Liz Hansen, Planner Peter Pollock, Plazming Director Bob Cole, Planner Ron Secrist, Boulder City Manager Aapeal Letter - Copv Attached Date of Appeal: 27 February 2002 Appeal addressed to: City of Boulder Planning Board Liz Hansen, Planner Peter Pollock, Planning Director Bob Cole, Planner Appeal from: "Whittier Neighbors Crystal Grey Vicki Naber Brian Smith Proiect General Descriution Project Name: 160t Peart Street, LLC Location; 1601 Pearl St. Coordinates: N03W06 Review Type: Use Review Review Number: LUR2001-00059 Applicant: JeffKozak Description: Use Review: for a restaurant over 1500 squaze feet in a new building at the northeast corner of 16th and Peazl Streets This is a response to an appeal of the Boulder Staffs disposition of approval for the use review of the above referenced project. Backeround: I. Applicant discussed requirements for submittal for Use Review from September 15, 2001 to October 8,2002 at which time application was submitted. Agenda Item #)~ Page #~_ Response ta Letter of Appeal Use Review LUR200l-00059 II. Boulder City Planner requested more information and responses to an informal discussion between Crystal Grey and Liz Hanson regazding neighborhood thoughts. Thi: was done to try to accommodate the neighborhood before ihe neighborhood meeting. III. On November 9, 2001 response to the criteria for use review approval was delivered to the City of Boulder. IV. Boulder City Planner continued discussions with Crystal Grey regazding questions, concerns etc that she might have and discussed them with applicant. This was done to "assure good communications between neighborhood and applicant". V. On November 9, 2001, applicant finally insisted that Crystal Grey and the City of Boulder schedule the required neighborhood meeting. VI. The meeting was scheduled by Crystal Grey to be on January 7, 2002 at 7:00 PM at the Whittier School Library. This was indicated to be the eazli'est tune Crystal Grey could attend and "get the neighbors together". Crystal Grey attended only the first few minutes of the meeting and voiced no concems and left the meeting. Boulder City Planner attended the meeting and reviewed neighbors' comments with applicant and Crystal Grey and included all known requirements (which the City could legally require of the applicant) in the Approval Disposition. VII, Formal Disposition was issued by Ptanning Department on February 13, 2002 after many more discussions with Crystal Grey to "assure good communications between neighborhood and applicant". Applicant agreed to all requirements requested by the Boulder City Planner to accommodate Neighborhood concerns and to accommodate the published "Criteria for Review" Section 9-4-9 (d) Land Use Regulations - City of Boulder. VIII. February 27, 2002, Crystal Grey sends Appeal Letter "on behalf of Whittier Neighbors". Applicant's analvsis of proiect compivint with al! Criteria for Review 9-4-9{d) (1): The proposed restaurant over 1,500 square feet is fully consistent with the zoning district as established. Restawants are a use by right in the zoning district and have been since the area has been zoned. Several yeazs ago, a lazge baz/restaurant became a problem to the neighborhood with late night noise, drunken behavior and pazking in the neighborhood. The • neighborhood lobbied City Council to create a method to help assure controls were place on projects to help assure that alcohol and pazking problems were mitigated. This was accomplished by the amendment to the zoning district that required a use review for restaurants/taverns over 1500 square feet so that the City and neighborhood could be relatively sure that the proposed use would be a"good neighbor to the surrounding neighborhood". Specific Criteria was set that a project must meet to be approved. The restaurant use is good for the area and the surrounding rasidential neighborhood and this restaurant use conforms to and exceeds the Criteria the City of Boulder set. 9-4-9(d) (2): Rationale: 9-4-9(d) (2)(All): Restaurants provide a service and convenience to the azea and to the surrounding neighborhood. Neighborhoods that exist adjacent to a commerciaUbusiness zone do so for the convenience of pedestrian access to shopping, eating and entertainment. Restaurants lo.cated within walking distance Agenda Item #~~ Page #~Q_ Response to Letter of Appeal Use Review L[JR2001-00059 to workers and residential neighborhoods allow those people to walk instead of using their cazs. This location allows for the best possible alternate transportation use because alternate transportation is already in place in the downtown azea. Restaurants are a very important part of the use mix that makes a downtown vibrant and successful. The very reason people move into a neighborhood bordering a downtown business zoning. 9-4-9(d) (3): A lazger than 1500 square foot restaurant does not cause a higher intensity use than a retail store of the same size which is allowed by right and is a far less intensi4y of use than multiple smaller restaucants and or bazs which is allowed by right. The rationale of this zoning amendment was to control the negative aspects of alcohol, late night use (noise) and pazking problems in the neighborhood. The new city pazking structure of over 600 spaces has never been full in the evenings and is located directly across the southwest corner of Peazl therefore ensuring that neighborhood parking by the restautants patrons in the evenings will not happen. The Developer of 1601 Pearl of which this restaurant is a part has constructed and operates a 325 space pazking structure at 15th and Spruce (one block away) that has only monthly employee pazking 6:00 AM to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday and free parking to downtown patrons and employees evenings and weekends. This structure has yet to be full in three yeazs of operations. This helps assure neighborhood parking by the restaurants patrons and employees will not happen. Further, the City of Boulder has a neighborhood parking permit process in effect to help assure that the few pazking spaces left in the neighborhood after residents over the yeazs replaced their garages and driveways (loosing all that parking) with apartments, etc. The operations of the restaurant including; serving only beer and wine with meals; closing eazly (see application statement); having no separate bar area; understanding and agreeing to the requirements for operations to not bother neighbors (no late night garbage etc.) assures compatibility and has no negative impact on the use of nearby properties. 9-4-9(d) (4): The use does not in any way adversely affect the infrastructure of the surrounding azea. The larger restaurant use is no different that two smaller restaurants. In fact it impacts the infrastructure less. 9-4-9(d) (5): The character of the acea is greatly improved by the building and whether it is occupied by restaurant(s), retail, etc does not change the character of the azea. Criteria is met bv Proiect. (Copv attached) 1. This was issued 27 February 2002 and the conditions of the approval assured that the Criteria for approval and the concems of the neighborhood, which fell within this Criteria, would be met by the project and its operations. Crystal Grey has for some time had issues with the City of Boulder regarding growth and pazking problems in the Whittier neighborhood. Applicant does not feel that Crystal Grey's and or some of the residents opinions that the City's neighborhood pazking enforcement is lax, that the downtown does not need more restaurants, or that the downtown should remain their private neighborhood has any bearing on the use approval of this project. Making the applicant spend 8 Agenda Item #~_ Page #~_ Response to Lerier of Appeal Use Review LUR2001-00059 months and a great deal of money getting approval of a project that meeu and exceeds all the criteria for approval set by the City of Boulder is unjustifiable and grossly unfair. The Whittier neighborhood, under the guidance of Crystal Grey', and with the approval and support of the City by their continued allowance of the neighborhoods over stepping of their authority has gone too faz. Perhaps the downtown business community should have a review process of the quatifications of who wants to live in the neighborhood, and what life style they can lead, etc. • The appeal letter states the restaurant is too lazge. Crystal Grey and the neighborhood have no right to size the restaurant or decide there aze too many restaurants etc. The applicant knows the area and feels that his type of service, food, etc. requires this size. The building is within the new down zoned area and this much retail and/or restaurant space is not only allowed, but encouraged to be on the ground floor to help maintain the vitality of the downtown. The project could have 4- 1,499 square foot bazs/restaurants on the first floor and seat approximately 300 people with no required criteria of hours (except 2:00 AM closing per liquor license, Live music until 2:00 AM, atc.) The Developer Applicant has proven to be a good neighbor and has worked to be a good neighbor in all their projects since 1983. • The appeal letter states the number of seats is too many. Please see above and please note that Crystal Grey's opinion regazding seating only is relevant if she is developing a restaurant and has analyzed the mazket conditions. This statement is no different than her being against a clothing store because it carries more shirts than her neighborhood wants to buy. • The appeal letter states the DMC does minimal enforcement. Appellant should take this up with the DMC not try to hold this project hostage and put undue economic burdens on the project. The entire letter of appeal has no bearing on the approval of this project and the Criteria that must be met to gain the approval. The project meets and/or exceeds all aspects of the Criteria for Approval and the Boulder Planning Department made the applicant delay t6e process and make extra concessions to accommodate the neighborhood. Yet 7 months later Crystal Grey continues to use the City staff and process to try to mold "Downtown Boulder according to Crystal Grey". This is wrong and especially wrong of the City of Boulder to allow this continued harassment of projects that operate within the City's published requirements and processes. Rules and regulations are not an ever-changing target to accomplish the wishes of a few. This appeal is inappropriate and a total misuse of the Land use regutations and the process of use review for a restaurant over 1,500 square feet. If a downtown business tried to convolute a rule or regulation to obstruct a member of the Whittier neighborhood from their property rights the City would not allow it. It is incumbent upon the City of Boulder to not allow a member of the Whittier neighborhood to obstruct a member of the downtown business community from their property rights The neighborhood should not decrease the importance of their input and participation by being unreasonable and overstepping their participation in the process. The City should stop this misuse of the process immediately and we respectfully ask the Planning Board to support its staff and the Land Use Regulations by which we are all asked to abide and approve this project subject to the Planning DepaMments Notice of Disposition approving the use issued 27 February 2002. f.U1A~Projects~2001\0124.01\ "AppeelResponse" Agenda Item #~_ page #_+~2 Response to Letter of Appeal Use Review LUR2001-00059 ,/ APPEwL I.~TTER APPEAL OF DISPUSITION 16U1 PfARl. STR.EET USE REVIEW LUR2001-00059 TO: CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD LIZ HANSEN. P1.ANNER PE7ER PQLLOCK, PLANNING DIRECTOR BOB CULE, PLANNEA FROM: WHITTIER NEIGHBQRS: CRYSTAI.GRAY VICJCI NABER BR1AN SM1TH DATE: FEBRUARY 27, 2002 VIA FAX AND EMAII. RE: APPEAI.OF pISPOSITION RfiGARDING 1601 PEARL STREB7 This is an appeal to tlu C~ty of BoUlda Planning Board regsrding the 'Nocice of Disposition' for 1601 Peazl-fiLUR2001-00059- THAT WAS ISS[J8D ON February 13, zooz. We aze appealing this because: • The size of the restaurant is too ]arge for a propaty abutting a residential zone. !t is proposed ac 5,460 squaze fae[ with a basement storage area of 1,300 square feet. Wc suggest 300U square feet is a more appropriate number. &ven 3000 square feet is twicc the number allowed use 6y right. • The numbers of seats are [oo many for a property abutting a residential zone. lt is proposed not [o axceed 165 interior seats and 50 excerior sea[s. No where on ~he mall gound floor ezie~or aze [here 50 ex[erior seats in r}us zone. The int~rior sea[s should be reduced to fit a reduced square foougc. Seating should not exceed 120 total intrnor and extcnor. • The parking requir+ement has no teech. It just says the applican[ shall 'encourage' use of iion-streec pazking eic. The DMC doas minimal enforcanen[ of [he exisiing cesidential parking district now. The parking disirict regulations and hours would need to be revised to accommodate the mcreased impacts in an already uverparked residential zone. Please note tha[ spaces are always available in ehe three garages neazby while the miden[ia) areas att ovetpa[1ced. ConQiuons 1(b). 1(d), 1(c) and 1(~ azc fine. Pleasa con[act us and let w know if you naed additionel information for chis appeal. Vicki Nabu 303-442-7514, Cryscal,Gray 3U1-449-9680, Bnan Smith Agenda Item #~_ Page #~,~ ~~~ ~ CITY OF BOULDER i~..- ' F ',~~ I '~` _ _~__~ Planning and Development Services 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 phone 303-444-1880 • fax 303-449-3241 • web bo~lderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER PLANNING DEPARTMENT' NOTICE OF DISPOSITION You are hereby advised that the following action was taken by the Planning Department based on the standards arn ~ criteria of the Land Use Regulations as set forth in Chapter 9-4, B.R.C. 1961, as applied to the proposed development. DECISlON: Approval, with condltio~s PROJECT NAME: 1601 Pearl Street Use Review DESCRIPTION: USE REVIEW: For a restaurant over 1500 square feet in a new building at the nartheast corner of 16th and Pea~t Streets. The restaurant would be 5,460 squarc feet in size with a basement storege area oi 1,300 square feet. The restaurant wr~•~ have a maximum of 165 interior seats and a maximum of 50 exterior seats. LOCATION: 1601 PEARl.ST COOR: N03W06 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Lot 7, Biock 92, Boulder Original Town, County of Boulder, Coloredo I APPLICANT: JEFP KOZAK OWNER: 1601 PEARL STREET LLC APPLICATION: Use Revfew Case # LUR2001-00059. ZONING: R82-X (Regional Business Two-Redeveloping) CASE MANAGER: Uz Hanson VESTED PROPERTY RfGHT: NO; the owner has waived the opportunity to create such rigl~: under Seetion 9-4•12, B.R.C. 1981. FOR CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL, SEE THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF THIS DISPOSITION. Approved on: Q,~rJQ~ ~ yI Z~~Z By: Peter Poliock, Planning Director This decision may be appealed to the Planning Board by filing an appeal letter with the Planning Department withir~ :~ weeks of the decision date. If no such appeal is filed, the decision shall be deemed final fourteen days after the date above mentioned. Appeal to Planning Board expires: I~YUQ.( 27 ~~2 Agenda Item #_~_ Page #~~ IN ORDER FOR A BUlLDING PERMlT APPLICATlOM TO BE PROCESSED FOR THIS PROJECT, A SIGNED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND SIGNED MYLAR PLANS MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT WITH DISPOSITION CONDITIONS AS APPROVED SHOWN ON THE MYLAR PLANS, IF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEM~NT IS NOT SIGNED WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS OF THE FINAL DECISION DATE, TH PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVAL AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRES. Pursuant to Section 9-4-8 of the Land Use Regulations (Boulder Revised Code, 1981), the applicant must begin an~ substantially complete the approved development wfthin three years from the date of final. Failure to "substantially complete" (as defined in Section 9-4-8) the development within three years shall cause this development approval tc expire. ~ CONDITIONS OF APPROVAl. The Applicant shall be responsible for ensuring that the development shail'be in compliance with ail approvei plans dated October 8, 2001 and written stetements dated October 17, 2001 and November 30, 2001 on file Ciry of Boulder Planning Department. Further, the Applicant shall ensure that the restaurant is operated in compiiance with the fallawing restrictions: a. Size of the restaurant shall be iimfted to 5,460 square feet, with a basement storage area of 1,300 sc feet. The seating area in ihe restaurant, exGusive of the tood display area, shall not exceed 3,4 W si feet with a maximum of 165 interior seats. There shall be a maximum of 50 exterior seats. b. Normal hours of operation shall be 10:30 a.m. to 10:00 p,m. Monday through Thursday and 10:30 ~~ 11:00 p.m. Saturday and Sunday; c. The restaurant floor plan shali include kftchen and food preparation areas, food display areas, seat:-. areas, and anciilary service areas, lncluding but not limited to restrooms, stairs, and eievator, as sh~, the approved floor plans dated October 8, 2001. d. Live music performances shall not be pertnitted. e. Trash and boriles shall not be removed to outside trash containers between the hours of 10:00 p.n 7:0o a.m.; f. Outdoor eating areas shall have no outdoor speakers. 2. The Applicant shall not expand or modify the approved restaurant use or the approved floor plan, including i~ seating areas, except pursuant to Subsection 9-4-9(g), B.R.C. i989. 3. The outdoor seating areas, as shown on the approved plans, that project into the public right-of-way must be approved as a revocable right-of-way permi! pursuant to Section 8-6-6, B.R.C. 1961. This use review app'~• shall not be construed as an approval of such encroachment. 4. Prior to requesting a final inspection, the Applicant shall provide and implement a plan, subject to the revie~== approval of the Director of Public Works, that: encourages restaurant employees to use altemate modes i•~ transportation from single occupant vehicle use; encourages employee use ot ofl-street parking areas in commercial zoning districts or parking spaces managed by the Central Area General Improvement Distric~: ~ discourages employees from parking on the on-street parking spaces within the surrounding residential neighborhood. Agenda Item #~_ Page #~_ Add~ess: 1601 PEARL ST ~ / ~~1 \~ r ~ Z ~ y- ~ RB1-E M p`~'~- R~ T • `, 5"~ R ~ /~ .~ w a z _~„s"'~. ~ P-E -E GROVE ST ~ ~ S Location: 1601 Pear/ S! ~~ Rev3ew Type: Use Revierv n ~~~ Project Name: 1601 Pearl St Restaurant 3600 ~~ 1 ~,,,~,~,k c~dm,,~«oi ~~+~M Review Num6er: LUR200~-p0059 . : ~.,..,_,,,~„_,_,,,... --r»-•-•- ~. Applicant: Jefl Kozak w W rY~rww~~~~w~Y.. =- ~== `-~ ~..,.. P~i, P~~ /~ RB C~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ \-_..\ ~~`^ SUBJECT PROPERTY ~\ ~ 1 601 PEARL ST ~~ ~ J a z / ~ • 5t ~ yJp~-NJT - RB1-X ~j GP~Ya~~~~~ `. Agenda Item #~_ Page #~~ !. 57wi 11. SMIB ~LiT Ff. 3iL~ ~~ ~, rm. coo'u 2-aW tc~wno asrur i. run uo~u ti ~ u. mmccinw aa ~ "'u u Ku mmi u. canccmi aa x wic. . m rac-ur r~siu ~x arac aa ;` , ~ ~ ~ ~~ OFFlCE I µ 001°~ ~* 120 SF u. utte xum ~~oaw iw~a aorrc . y o ~~ ~+ 0 ~ ro . . , Cl C~ ~ ~ ° 0 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~ var . r~ 20 FEET ~ ~ ~~ F;\prq\O1SO\mf~vett~dv~, 137'-1lX31. ]0/09/0103;I4NB'PM; W~eW ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~ a, ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ i ~ ~ 1V01'E`Pc7F~0YED FLOO~S , F~Ru{ItELNR~n- ~£~1ricsN5 ~or T?EV~EWED ~ ~~ °F 7Hi5 ~5+~ Rxl~lEW D~tauttla-1 ~~ ~~~~ OCTOSER 19, 2001 TO: Jay Midyette FROM~ JeffKozak ~ RE: Application Statement Vetta is based oa an existing Chicago restaurant, Pompei that opened in 1909 in Chicago's Little Itely neighborhood. Pompei is known for its award winning piuas and P'~icottos, unique salads, and handmade pastas. The food is made &esh daily on premises. Pompei uses no artiScial additives or p[eservatives. My wife, a graduate of UC Boulder, and ( made a pact to move to Bou(der two years ago after nwning in the Bolder Boulder. We've chosen to leava our paRnership in Pompei Chicago, move to Boulder, and open a"siste~' wncept named Vetta. We be6eve that Vetta's ltalian specialties, personalized secvice, and warm ambiance will bring a unique style of dining to Boulder. Vetta resembles a traditional pizzeria and caf~ found in Italq. 1~Vb will be open from 1.0:30 AM to ] 0:00 PM Sunday through Thursday, and &drt1 10:30 AM to I 1:30 PM Fridays and Saturdays. Wine and beer will be served on pt~Mtfl9es with food. Vetta will have indoor seating for l50 and an outdoor cafe that will se8t dD. We look fonvard to living and operating in Boulder. Agenda Item #~_ Page #~_ PROJECT FACT SHEET Fartwna u« a.w.w Appwatbn. Aaurate and complele inforrrotlon ebad e projeel is iMegrel b a timely erd thaagh dly review. Please type or print complete answers to th~ Ilems pst~d undar the boxas that relate lo yotrr pmJed N'hNe some o( Uds fnfortrtatbn may be d~duded on fhe projed sda plsns or discussed in Ihe wrilen statemeM, please elso e~ter it here. H you choose b retteab this dacumenl, please only incWde the tlems Ihal telate W your projed. M elecUOnic version o( this docvment Is avallable on tlie rieb at ~.d.boulaer.co~,qlDwleinoservices. ALL PROJECTS Key Infnrmation Subjed ~xoperty addressJlorrtion: ~~.p~,~~C~i' Owner name and address: ~~n0(_~/~~~~ C.LL ~./~ f~ nnP - r~~r, r`1r-i,ST &.r~,-~-E~o 2 legal Descriptbn ( adx : A~L.~1ED Age of exisling slruNUres: Size W slte in square feet enC ecres. Gross: ~4.4~.- Net (aQer pudk deditaBons): CurreMZonirigDesignalfon: ~2'J~ for rezming and annenation appHcations, Proposecl Zoning Designation: I~l. f~ Boulder VaNey Cort~prehertsive ~ Plan Lend Use De,MgnaCion: ~_ Prevaus Approvals ~spedry pro~ect name, review type). ~,il~ SdarAa~essA~ea Designetion (dre9e orre): Area I Area II I`c ~~ Dces tl~e pmJed'mdude the dertwBlion af eny shudunes? ~i nAb ~t'f' A~ It yes, what year was lha strupure buill? Please Rst any requested veriatbns lo fhe larid use regulabons (apeafic variance iMamaGon is iequeated latar in the project fact sheet)~ ~-~--~~~-~~1~~-~ . Agenda Item #~_ page #~~ Parking Total ~1 ort-dreet patking atandard s¢e __ (~mensbns: 9' x 15 ) spaces e~dsting smak car _ (dimensio~a: 7'9' x 1S ) aocessible __ (dimensions:l2'xi9'*g• ) bic~rale (lypa: 1 olher _ (dimasions: ) TOTAL Total /1 oB-slreet parking standard size _ (dme~ions: 9' x 19' ) spaces proposed small car , _(dimensians: 7'9' x 1S ) ' axessible - ~---(dlmensbns:l2'xt9'*3' 1 bicycle ~ ~_lh~Pe~ ---) other - ---~dimeruuio~:------) TOTAL ------ - Spedfy % of paritin9 reduction requesteC Specify % of paiicing detertal requesled Setbaeka --96---spaces where ` are reQuired ~1L^spaces whore _ ere taquired Carlain sheets are categorized irt Me dty coda as Major Streels and have more testrictlve setDack reqwremenLs. Does your propeity abut a Mapr Streel? ,~.Q__ ~, YVhala, the setback requcement? ~~-O Are any sethack varietio~ iequested? ~J,a Please speci(y requesC _teet for Ihe yard. selbadc, where_feet is requirad ~leet for the vard aetback where,feel is requ'ved ~faet tor 1he _ vatd selbeck, where,feCt is required _teet tor the yard aetback, where_ teet is required Are you reqvesting arry other variations W the Land Use Regulations? K so, please Ilst Lhe specific veriatlon(s) requesled: Agenda Item #~_ Page #~ Pkase indiwte with a eheekmarlc N your prop~rty Is ~Nacted by any ot the tollowing: WeYend erea Nrport IMuenoe Zane HiSEOriC Wndmark designatioNdistrict Balder Yalby Regionel Cenler (BYRC) 100 Year Fbod Zone North Boulder Subtommunity Plan CAGID parlUng disttict UHG~D parkl~g ~yfstrict Other bcal improvemant distrid Land Use Please desaibe tha proposed use~s) ot the.proparty, induding aclivities conducted on sfte, oumher of seats, number of guest roams, number of residents, number o( employees, houra of operation and any other unique opera6ng charaqarislics. Also. Please spocily which land ~ma cetagory(ies) n the Schedde o/ Prnnitled Land Uses (Section 8-3.1-1) that mosl dosey descxibes the proposed use: ITaL~A,n~ ~~ ~~r ~.~ ~,~~~r4~ ~~~Lt.~ lIJ ( n~.,~_I~/~l~- ~ ~'~t D£ UP '("o ~C5 ~~,~~ 10' 3b ~A M- IO % 00 PM - NDA~ -~2S~A~1 _ lo~ ~o A~ - ~~: ~ P~1 ' ~R1 - ~y~,l~~ ~MP~~-Q~~ - 20 unnse. Ara exlsUng bw7tFngs hooked~uP to city waler7 ~ Are axisting buAd'ings hookedap to dy sawat7 ~_ Ara thera dry water meMn edjaoent N~e PropeAy! --~£5---- Are Uiere dry sewer mel~ edJwent the pmperq? 4~S Pleasa neme any utllily distride thffi aKrenth~ serve the propeAy: Iv. A, ~ Agenda Item #~_ Page #_~ ~ ~ ~ ~t: a ~~ ~ "~ I ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ a d~'t~ ~ 'RTd~} ~B~ 9EVA710l1 NB~h SIAff11 ~ s~u• . ~•-s' 01 S~ =~ . ._- 20 FEET ~- ~_~ ~ ~ ~y i ~ ~ ~ Agenda Item k 4-i Page# .;' 7 F:~prol\0120\mf1VF,TTA.dwg.2NU IIX17. 10/22/0108:96:20AM. MidYeltr d~ .~~ .~. ~IIH HEYAl'ION !'FiYI. SINHT) ~ ~/n• . r-a- ATTACHMENT B DRAFT SUMMARY OF PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, APRIL 4, 2002, REGARDING 1601 PEARL STREET Concern for the lack of parking enforcement in the neighbarhood parking district. 2. Catering would need an additional review because of the impacts. 3. The proportion of the take-out business was high, and, given two turnovers in seating, it was thought to add additional trips (about 100). 4. Encourage the owner to ask employees to park in the adjacent parking garage. 5. Concern that if the proposed use goes away, another large restaurant use could be approved for the site without any neighborhood comment. The Board wanted a clause that would require a new use review if there was a change in ownership rather than rely on the restrictive conditions. 6. Concern that the use review criteria have not been met--it is not consistent with the zoning, it does not reduce adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood, it does not provide a compatible transition between high intensity and lower intensity uses, the location size, design and operating characteristics are not compatible with the nearby properties, and it is not compatible with the character of the area. Concern that cumulative impacts of such uses already exist in the area. 8. There is a need to market to the puUlic the parking spaces in tl~e garages. 9. I'here is a need for an impact analysis on a restaurant size between 1,~00 square Feet and 4,500 square feet. 10. There is a need for an ongoing process to a good neighbor plan. 11. The downtown property owners need to be more prolctive in addressing parking problems. 12. There was concern not only of tl~e size of the resYaurant but the size of the use inside tl~e building and the size in this ]ocation. 13. There is a need to design the buildiug to allow the space in the Uuilding to develop into something other than a large, single owner, retail use over time. Agenda Item #~_ Page #~ s:\plan\pb-items\memos~eh I G01 pead5202ur ATTACHMENT C Apri125, 2002 REVISED PROPOSAL: 1601 PEARL STREET - VETTA Many issues were raised at the Apri14, 2002 Boulder Planning Board's use review. Some issues relate specifically to Vetta. Others relate not directly nor solely to this restaurant proposal but to pre-existing neighborhood concerns. Concerns that have been around long before I first came to Boulder more than a year and a half ago. While these are important issues, they need to be addressed with the entire business and residential community. I ask that the Board kaep this in mind and treat Vetta as they have treated other East End restaurant use reviews over the past few years. As a Boulder resident and future business owner, I promise to do everything in my power to assure that Vetta is a restaurant that Boulder residents will be proud to have in their community. There are key issues that need to be addressed such as why the restaurant needs to be the size proposed and have the number of seats proposed. I first presented Vetta publicly at the Whittier Neighborhood meeting in January 2002. It was a great meeting. Most of the feedback I received was very positive. We talked about issues of concern and reached compromises, The neighbors, the Boulder Planning Department, and I were satisfied. I thought Yhat what the neighbors had approved that evening was binding. I couldn't understand why the proposal was appealed. Several people at the April meeting expressed concern about what would happen if the restaurant failed. No one can predict the future. But I do know what is needed to make Vetta work. I have developed a"formula" that has been tested and lias been successful. What some don't realize is that each additional restriction may reduce Vetta's chances for success. I ask that the Board to keep this in mind as they review this revised proposal. I believe that Vetta will be a great addition to the East End. I believe that Boulder needs more high quality affordable family restaurants. i know that we will be a very comp~tible nei~hbor. Thank you for your time, your patience, and your thou~htful consideration. SIZE OF THE RESTAURANT Vetta is a concept that is significantly differenf from most restaurants. All of our food products are made on premises. We use raw ingredients to produce each menu item from bread to pastas to salad dressing to pastries. We do not buy fi•ozen nor camied tinished products and just reheat them to sell to our customers. This is why otn• food is so well received. This type of operation, however, is space intensive. Our kitchen facilities require approximately 20% more space than a typical restaurant kitchen. We have proposed that the restaurant be 5460 sqtiare feet. Given the concern with this square footage, we believe d~at we can reduce the size to 4000 square feet. This will require us to lease warehouse space elsewhere for food production. We therefore propose a reduction from 5460 square feet to a revised size of 4000 square feet, a 27.5% space reduction. Agenda Ifem # 1LL Page k~~ April 25, 2002 SEATING At the January Whittier Neighborhood meeting, we agreed on 165 seats. At the April hearing, the Board was not comfortable with i65 seats. We propose a reduction from 165 to 135 seats, an 18% reduction. We fee] that Vetta is viable with 135 indoor seats. The people of Boulder take advantage of outdoar seating nearly year round. Outdoar dining is a very important attraction for many customers. We recognize that most days, the number of customers that enjoy outdoor dining are simply customers that are "transferred" from indoors to outdoors. That is, if on a particular day 50 people dine outdoors, that's 50 fewer people that will generally dine indoors. Nevertheless, we are willing to reduce outdoor seating from 50 to 45 seats, a 10% reduction. CATERING There seems to have been confusion as to the scope of Vetta's catering operation. I want the Board to know that the catering menus that they received on Apri14, 2002 were passed out at the January Whittier Neighborhood meeting and that no concerns were raised. I was never then, nor am I now, trying to hide anything. Our catering services are the same as the catering services that many other Boulder restaurants provide for their customers (i.e. Gondolier and Sunflower). We deliver the food listed on our catering menu the same way that we would deliver a pizza to your home or office. We do not provide off site staffing; we do not have a fleet of catering vehicles; and all of the supplies that we drop, such as plates, forks, etc., are disposable. qgenda ftem #.~~ f::;`; ~~~ April 25, 2002 VETTA'S GOOD NEIGHBOR PLAN Vetta (meaning "summiP' or "peak" in Italian) is a Boulder version of a Chicago restaurant concept called "Pompei." Pompei, established in 1909, has been serving families for generations. Pompei has been successful for 92 years because of it's relationship with the surrounding community. The success of Vetta, like Pompei, revolves around the people we serve: our customers, employees, and neighbors. We understand the importance of being a good neighbor both on the giving end and the receiving end. Our ongoing Good Neighbor Plan is part of our commihnent to be a positive and compatible force in the Boulder community and to bring great food and charm to the East End! This plan was designed using the feedback from the January 2002 Whittier Neighborhood meeting and the April 4, 2002 Boulder Planning Board hearing. NOISE • No live entertainment. • No exterior music. • No loitering in the rear of the property. • Rear oFproperty will have 24 hour surveillance cameras. PARHING POLICY We understand that parking is one the Whittier Neighbors' primary concerns. We want to be good neighbors and are resolved to do everything in our power to minimize the impact of parking. We also understlnd that parking in the neighborhood has been an issue ]ong before the Vetta concept was ever presented to the conununity and the Boulder Planning Department. We ask to not be unfairly judged because of existing neiehborhood parking issues. We strongiy feel we have a plan that will work in addressing the Whittier neighbors' concerns. Tliere are two primary components of our parking policy: cuslaner parking and employee parking. Customer Parkiug We will encourage our customers to use public parking facilities by the following: • Our menus and website wiJl have specific directions to puUlic parking garages. • We will validate customer parking to encourage garage usage. • We will make customers aware that residential street parking areas have restrictions and that they may be [icketed if they park there. ~genda lcem k _~ f` :~ _ ` _ ~~ Apri125, 2002 VETTA'S GOOD NEIGHBOR PLAN Employee Parking • All employees will be strongly encouraged to obtain an ECO-PASS. ECO-PASS information will be distributed and discussed at all new hire orientations. • Employees will be encouraged to take advantage of alternatives modes of transportation such as car pooling, biking, and walking to work. • As part of employee orientation, all employees will be given a walking tour of nearby parking garages and will be shown areas where they are prohibited from parking. • Employees will be instructed to use public parking facilities. • Our employee parking policy will be discussed in detail in the "Vetta Employee Handbook." Each employee will be required to sign off on the handbook indicating that they agree to abide by all policies and procedures. Failure to abide by handbook provisions will result in disciplinary action. • A member of the Vetta management team will attend the monthly Whittier Neighborhood meeting so that we are made aware of any parking problems and/or otherrelevantissues. We believe that these policies, feedback from our neighbors, cooperation from other East End businesses, and better zone parking enforcement by the Boulder Police Department will minimize the impact of parking on the adjoining neiahborhood. ALCOIIOL All employees will go through extensive alcohol awareness training including the Boulder Police Department program. • We serve wine and Ueer only. No hard liquor. We have no bar. Intoxicated patrons will not be served (neitlier alcohol nor food). Alcohol will only be served as an accompaniment to food. We are 1 family restatrrant and our patrons comfort is our first priority. TI2ASH • Trash will not be thrown out nor picked-up between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. ,~~~nda ~tem # 714 ~~ ~ April 25, 2002 VETTA'S CDOD NEIGHBOR PLAN RECYCLING • We will Participate in thePACE program. COMMUNITY FEEDBACK • We have always encouraged feedback from our neighbors because it makes our relationship with the community stronger. A member of the Vetta management team will attend the monthly Whittier Neighborhood meetings. We feel that it is a perfect venue for our neighbors to address any Vetta related issues. It's also a great opportunity for us to stay informed with our community. In closing, we feel that this revised proposal reflects significant changes from the proposal that was accepted at the January Whittier Neighborhood meeting. It is our good faith effort to be compatible by meeting the needs of the community while assuring a viable restaurant. We would like to axpress our excitement about being part of the Boulder community. We will endeavor to assure that for many years to come Vetta will be an asset and a good neighbor. agenda Irem # _~ `. _ -_.3Q_ Apr-26-02 02:53P TO: FROM: RE: DATE: PLANNIIVG BOACtD CRYSTAL GRAY VICKi NABER OTHER WHITTIER NEIGHBORS 1601 PEARL VETA RESTAURANT APRIL 26, 2002 ATTACHMENT D Members of [he Whittier Neighborhood have discussed the revised proposal from Mr. Jeff Kozak regarding the Vetu Restaurant at 1601 Pearl Street. We are pleased with the following conditions that Mr. Kozak has proposed: • Reduced the size of the restaurant to n total of 400q sy. ft. • Reduced seating to 135 inside seats. • Reduced seating out side from 50 to 45. We still feel outside seating is too large but as long as the seating can be accommodated on the Pearl Street side and not more than 30-40 feet ~iown 16`~ (similar to Sunflowcr's arrangement) we feel this is workable. • Mr. Kozak stated the hours, menu und operating chazacteristics will remain the same as in the first proposal with closing at 10 p.m. Sun-Thurs. and closing at 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday. • Mr. Kozak has several good 'proactive' suggestions to muke his employees, and patrons, awa~e of purking opportunities in the struc[ures. The bigger issuo of parking education still needs to be handled by the DMC but we appreciate the fact that Mr. Kozak listened tn the neighborhood. We would like the architecUdeveloper of the building tu take a look at the 16'h Street facade and possibly change the large bank of windows. We know this is `use by right' but smaller more interesting windows going north on 16`h could be mare interesting architecturally and more compatible with a transition to a residentiul neighborhood. Once again, the Sunflower is a good exumple of this transition by huving just a large window near the corner and smaller ones towards thc residential areu, Plaaninr Board is reauested to add the foUowenr condrt:on: I. We feel very atrongly that thrs restaurant approval should be lied to Mr. !(ouik and this spec'~J'ic restauranl. /n the future, {f another restaurant should want to locate at this site it is our request that the eondltions state they must come in jor a use review. This request is ntade because much of the neighbarhood's acceptance of this proposal is that it is a famrly orienfnted restaurant with a certain character and opernting charocteristics. We do not feel it ea adequate for a fature restourant at thia aite to just be required to have a converaation with the Plarening Staff regarrling the conditionr. Please make thir known to the Ctty Attorney. There is pncedence for thia request. Agenda Ilem ~ _~f~_._ Page k ~ Apr-26-02 02:54P 2. Since there were no revised jloor plana to review we ase requesting that the approval be contingent upon swff finding that the jloor plans nre simrlar to the original sebmittal with no dedicated bar and dining area. reduced showing 135 seats. 3. Request to have Pfanning Boord write a letter to the Downtown Management Commission requesting that the DMC actively work to resolve parking essuea in the netghborhood since there is always space available ire their structures t{iter 5 p.m. We will bring a drafi a leUer to the May 2, 2002 hearing fpr your consideration. The DMC stq/f seems eo have a lack of communicaliore witle the Whitlier Neighborhood and Planning Boar+d's help to solve this would be welcome. Thank you for your time in the review of this project. Your questions and comments had a lot to do with us fully understunding this proppsal and coming up with our recommendation. P.03 Hge~rtla Ifem ~ ~fl _ ~~aye ~_5~ .._..