Loading...
5B - Public hearing and consideration of Use Review LUR2006-00067, etown, for the property located aCITY OF BOULDER PLANNING BOARD AGENDA ITEM MEETING DATE: July 5, 2007 Agenda Item Preparation Date: June 21, 2007 AGENDA TITLE: Public heanng and consideration of non-conforming Use Review #LUR2006-00067, etown, for the property located at 1535-1539 Spruce Street, in the Residential High-2 (RH-2) zoning district. The proposal ~ncludes use of the existing building for broadcast and recording uses, office use, audio editing, post production, community meetings, workshops, and live musical performances with up to 200 audience members, up to 12 times per month until 9:00 p.m. Applicant: Nick Forster Owner: Tebo Partnership, LLLP Case Manager: Charles Ferro REQUESTING DEPARTMENT: Ruth McHeyser, Acting Planning Director Robert Ray, Land Use Review Manager Charles Feno, Case Manager OBJECTIVE: Define the steps for Plamm~g Board consideration of this request: 1. Hear applicant and staff presentations 2. Hold public hearing 3. Planning Board discussion -Is the proposed use consistent with the uses permitted in the RH-2 zone district? -Is the request consistent with required Use Review criteria? 4. Planning Board take action to approve, approve with conditions or deny STATISTICS: ProposaL The applicant is requesting a non-conforming Use Review to allow for a change of use from religious assembly to broadcast and recording to include audio editing, post production, administrative office, community meetings, work shops, lectures and tapings of live musical performances with up to 200 audience members, up to 12 times per month unitl 9:00 P.M. for broadcast on the radio. A~enda Item # SB PaQe# 1 Project Name: etown non-conforming Use Review Location: 1535-1539 Spruce Street Size of Tract: 0.23 Acres (10,028 square feet) Zoning: Residential High Density-Two (RH-2) Comprehensive Plan: High Density Residentia] (HR) KEY ISSUES: 1) Is the proposed use consistent with the uses permitted in the RH-3 zone district? 2) Is the request consistent with the Use Review criteria? BACKGROUND: Process Per Section 9-2-15(d)(1), B.R.C., 1981, Planning Board approval is required for Use Review applications which propose a non-residential use in a residential zoning district. Zoning The property is zoned RH-2. Proper[ies zoned RH-2 consist of azeas pnmarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units including, without limitation, apartment buildings and specific complementary uses where appropnate. The intent of the RH-2 zoning district is to accommodate high density, multi-family residenhal development; however, a number of non- residential uses such as religious assemblies are permitted as uses by-right, requiring no discretionary approvals. Additionally, several non-residential uses such as professiona] and medical office uses and convenience retail sales are permitted through the Use Review process. Per Section 9-2-15, B.R.C., 1981, the purpose of the Use Review process is to determine whether certain non-residential uses, which may have neighborhood impacts, are appropriate for an azea. Section 9-6-1(d), B.R.C., 1981 permits broadcast and recording facilities through the Use Review process in the RH-2 zoning district. Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981 defines a broadcast and recording faciliry as a"studio for the purpose of broadcasting radio or television, or a studio for recording of live performances". Based on the Land Use Code's definition of broadcast and recordmg facilities, staff has found that a small, l~ve studio audience can be considered an accessory use to the principal broadcast and recording uses. Due to the deficiency of on-site pazking available to serve the property, Per Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981, the site is considered non-conforming due to parking only. History The existing church structure was constructed in 1925. On-site parking for the church was originally located on the property to the west of the site at 1525 Spruce. (In 1983, the property located at 1525 Spruce Street was redeveloped into a mixed-use development, consuming the existing pazking for the church and leaving the site non-conforming due to parking). In 1980, the property owner of 1535-1539 Spruce was granted a Use Review approval to operate the property as a private school known as the Carden School. From 1989 to 1998, the Salvation Army occupied the building as a religious assembly through use by-right. For the most part, the property has been primarily occupied by religious assembly uses since the building was constructed in 1925. AQenda Item # 5B Page# 2 In 1999, the Whittier Neighborhood Association notified the City's Environmental and Zoning Enforcement staff that several illegal, non-residential uses were operating in the building. In October, 1999 the property owner was granted a one year extension under Section 9-10-2(a), B.R.C., 1981 from Planning Board to allow the illegal uses to continue in order to provide the property owner necessary time to vacate the illegal uses and find uses and tenants for the building which meet the use requirements of [he RH-2 zone district. Currently, the Ehm Tabernacle of Christ has been operating legally in the existing church sanctuary since 1999 as a use by-right. Twelve services a month are currently held on Wednesday evenings from 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. and Sundays from 10:00 A.M. to 12:00 P.M. and 7:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M. However, several other illegal uses including a drug testing laboratory, a gymnasium, two professional offices, and two physical therapy offices are operating w~thin the building. (Environmental and Zoning Enforcement d~vision currently has an active enforcement case pending on the subject property. The property owner has until June 30`h, 2007 ro apply for Use Review. If the applicant does not apply for Use Review or vacate the existing illegal tenants, a summons resulting in a penalty of $2,000 per day for the violation may be issued). In October, 2006, the applicant filed a pre application request with staff to investigate the possibility of converting the property to a broadcast and recording facility as described above (refer to Attachment A). Subsequently, the applicant filed the subject Use Review application for a non-conforming Use Review in August, 2006 (refer to Attachments B and C for stafYs development review comments). Existing Site / Site Context As indicated by Attachment D, the property is located at the noith west corner of 16`h and Spruce in the Whittier Neighborhood. The building was constructed as a church in 1925 in the Mission Revival vemacular as the First Church of the Nazarene and the strucwre is considered to be a contributing histoncal building, eligible for Landmark Designation. The property has one existing surface parking space on the north west corner of the property accessed from the alley, and is considered non-conforming due to parking only. Per the photos found in Attachment E, the interior of the sanctuary area has a capacity of 200 people and is comprised of a number of pews an aitar, and a stage. (Per attachment C, as it exists, the proposed sanctuary space does not meet current Building Code requirements regarding fire suppression and ingress / egress). The area is characterized by mixed use development with both high and low density residential development surrounding the property. The property is located approximately 400 feet north of the East Pearl Street commercial district and approximately 450 feet from the public parking garage located at 1500 Pearl Street. Immediately north of the property is high density, multi-family residential development; south of the property is a m~xture of retail, office, day care, and residential uses. Immediately east of the property is a mixture of residentiai properties, and abutting to the west is a mixed use development consisting of 10 residential units and approximately 9,600 square feet of office space. The residential units direcdy to the west are situated approximately 10 feet from the sanctuary space where live performances and tapings would occur. Agenda Item # 5B Paee# 3 Parking in the area is restricted through the Whittier Neighborhood Parking Program (NPP). The NPP program was developed as a tool to balance the needs of all who park on Whittier streets, includmg residents, visitors and commuters. The area of 16`h Street between Spruce and Pine is restricted to a maximum of three hours, once a day, between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 8:00 P.M. unless a Whittier NPP Permit is displayed, in which case parking is unrestricted. The area of Spruce Street between 15`h and 16`h is restricted to two hour parking between 8:00 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. and does not require a Whittier NPP Permit. Per Attachment F, the existing zoning pattern of the area is varied, yet primarily residential. Properties to the north of the site are zoned Residential High Density-Two (RH-2); properties to the south are zoned Downtown Two (DT-2); propcrties to the east are zoned Residential Mixed - One (RMX-1); and properties to the west are zoned Residential High Density-Two (RH-2). Generally, areas zoned RH-2 serve as a transition between the higher land use intensity of the DT-2 zoning district and the lower intensity RMX-1 azeas. Project Description Etown is a weekly radio broadcast heard nationwide on National Pubhc Radio, commercial, and commimity radio stations. Every etown show is taped in front of a live audiencc and features interviews, conversations, and performunces by various musical artists. Etown has been operating in Boulder smce 1992 and tapes bctween 2~ nnd 30 shows a ycar with a majority of the tapings taking place at the 700 seat Boulder Theatre located at 2032 14`~ Street. Etown cun'endy rents separaCe administrative office space in Boulder as well for daily administrative activities associated with managing and producing the weekly etown radio broadcast. The applicant is requesting a non-conforming Use Review to allow for a change of use from religious assembly to broadcast and recording to include audio editing, post production, admmistrative office, community meetings, work shops, lectures and tapings of live performances with up to 200 audience members, up to 12 times per month until 9:00 P.M. for broadcast on the radio. Per the applicant's written statement and management plan contained in Attachments G and H, the applicant has eight full-time employees and between two and five part- time volunteers. Regular office operations will occur Monday through Friday from 9:30 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. and taping of live performances, lectures, and work shops will occor between 7:00 P.M. and 9:00 P.M. most likely on weekends. Per the applicant's written statement (refer to Attachment G), the applicant intends to continue to utilize the Boulder Theater in downtown Boulder as the primary venue for regulaz performances and tapings and plans to use the subject property for taping, smaller, lesser-known artists. Additionally, per the applicanYs wntten statement, no alcohol will be served at the subject location. As mentioned above, the property is considered non-conforming due to a lack of adequate parking on-site to serve the proposed uses. Non-residential uses in the RH-2 zoning district require one parking space per every 300 squaze feet of floor area; therefore, based on the 17,856 square feet of floor area, approximately 59 pazking spaces would be required to serve the proposed broadcast and recording facility. The property is located outside of the Central Area Improvement District (CAGID) and must therefore provide on-site parking for all uses. Per the Management Plan found in Attachment H, Agenda Item # SB Paee# 4 the applicant proposes to purchase yearly parking permits for employees in the public garage at 1500 Pearl Street. Additionally, parking for live performances will be accommodated at the public parking garage at 1500 Pearl, as well as other public parkmg opportunities along the East Pearl Corridor. Staff has recognized the property as a potential landmark site and the applicant has expressed interest in applying for an official landmarks designation on the property. Per the apphcant's written statement, the proposal will not alter the exterior of the building greatly. New windows, doors and roof modifications are proposed to attenuate sound transmission and make interior spaces more useable. The applicant has consulted an acoustical engineer regarding building modifications required to effectively attenuate sound. Per Attachment I, the applicant's consultant has indicated that the building can be retrofitted to attenuate and mitigate any potenial sound tranmission with little or no sound audible sound tranmission at the western property line. ANALYSIS: 1) Is the proposed use consistent with the uses permitted in the RH-2 zone district? On balance, staff has found the request to be inconsistent with the uses permitted in the RH-2 zoning distnct. As indicated above, Section 9-6-1(d), B.R.C., 1981 permits broadcast and recording facilities through the Use Review process in the RH-2 zonmg district. Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981 defines broadcast and recording facilities as "a studio for the purpose of broadcasting radio or television, or a studio for recording of live performances ". Per Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981, an accessory use can be defined as "a use located on the same lot as the principal building, structure, or use to which it is related and that is subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of the land and is operated and maintained for the benefit or convenience of the occupants, employees, and customers of or visitors to the premises with the principal use." As mentioned above, at the pre application phase, staff found that a smali studio audience may be considered an accessory use that is subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of a broadcast and recording facility. The applicant's Use Review application, however, requests occasional, small scale live performances with a maximum occupancy of 200 people, up to 12 times a month. Staff finds the proposal to be of a scale and frequency more closely resembling that of a principal theater use, rather than an accessory use to a broadcast recording facility. Per Section 9-6-1(d), B.R.C., 1981, theater uses are not permitted in the RH-2 zoning district. Wh~le the applicanYs narrative statement indicates the building has a total capacity of 200 people, a small audience accessory to the proposed broadcast and recording use would more reasonably constitute significantly fewer audience members (not to exceed approximately 50 people), and would be less frequent than 12 per month in order to remain an accessory use to the principal broadcast and recording uses. Additionally, a principal theater use would tngger significant building upgrades and trigger pazking requirements to support a principal theater use in addition to the 59 spaces required for the principal broadcast recording use. (refer to Attachments B and C~. Agenda Item # SB Paee# 5 2) Is the request consistent with required Use Review criteria? The proposal is consistent with many of the Use review criteria, notably, numerous BVCP policies related to support for local business, preservation of historic and cultural resources (the applicant has indicated a willingness to submit an application for the landmark designation of the existing historic structure), and support for performing and visual arts. The primary area of inconslstency with the use review criteria relates to neighborhood character and compahbility of adjacent land uses. Staff has provided a detailed analysis of the proposed application based on the Use Review critena in Attachment J. PUBLIC COMMENT AND PROCF.SS: The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 16, 2006 which approxtmately 25 people attended. Neighbors were very supportive of the applicant, although, a majority of the neighbors in attendance expressed serious concerns regarding the potential number of audience members, the frequency and [imes of live performances, parking impacts, noise impacts created from live performances, impacts from crowddispersal, and loitering. Neighbors directly to the west also noted that during current church services, amplified instruments and percussion could be heard in adjacent units. Neighbors were very concemed that the proposed performances and tapings would exacerbate noise levels. Neighbors also expressed concerns regarding the current illegal uses operating within the building. Some neighbors indicated that the concept may be supportable if the number of audience members were reduced and the performance tlmes less frequent and ended earlier. Similarly, per Attachment K, the Whittier Neighborhood Association indicates support; however, concerns were expressed over noise and parking impacts. A small number of audience members fully supported the use without restrictions. Neighborhood correspondences received have been included in Attachment K. Reqmred public notice was given in the form of written notification mailed to all property owners within 600 feet of the subject property and a sign posted on the property for at least 10 days. All notice requirements of Section 9-4-2, B.R.C. 1981 have been met. STAFF FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: Planning staff finds that the Applicant has failed demonstrate that the proposed application for non-conforming Use Review satisfies required Use Review criteria. Further, that the use as proposed is not consistent with the definition for broadcast and recording facilihes in the RH-2 zone district. While staff is supportive of the change of use from religious assembly to broadcast and recording to include audio editing, production, and administrative office, the proposed tapings of live musical performances with up to 200 audience members, up to 12 [imes per month for broadcast on the radio will result in negative neighborhood impacts. If there applicant were amenable to reducing the amount of audience members ro 50, staff could support the subject application for Use Review. AQenda Item # SB Paee# 6 Therefore, staff recommends that Planning Board deny Use Review #LUR2006-00067 incorporating this staff inemorandum and the attached Use Review Criteria Checklist as findings of fact. Approved By: '~ /' ~~ , Ruth McHeyser, A ing Planning Director Planning Department ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Pre Application Summary dated March 24, 2006 Attachment B: Development Review Comments dated September 8, 2006 Attachment C: Development Review Comments dated June 5, 2007 Attachment D: Vicinity Map Attachment E: Interior Photographs Attachment F: Zoning Map Attachment G: Applicant's Wntten Statements and Plans Attachment H: Management Plan Attachment L Letter from Borzym Acoustics dated October 27, 2006 Attachment J: Use Review Criteria Attachment K: Neighborhood Correspondence S:~PIan~Pb-itemsUVIEMOS\CF.1535 Spruce - eTown UR.doc Agenda Item # SB Paee# 7 Attachment A PRE-APPLICATION MEETING SUMMARY Date of Summary: Location of Request: Zoning: Applicant / Contact Case Manager: Departmental Staff: 3/24/06 1535 Spruce St. HZ-E (High Density Residential - Established) Nick Forster P.O. Box 954 Boulder, CO 80306 Charles Ferro, Planner II Phone: (303) 443-8696 Fax: (303) 443-4489 Phone: (303) 441-4012 Elizabeth Hanson, Business Liaison Charles Ferro, Plamier I] Steve Durian, Transportation Enginccr James Hewat, Historic Preservation Planner Development Proposal: Use existing church building for officc space, editing, post production, workshops, community meetings, and occasional small-scale public musical performances to be recorded and broadcast. E-town performances will continue to be hosted and recorded at the Boulder Theatre, however, e- town currently leases office and post production space downtown and would like to purchase the subject property in order to help accomplish the following goals: 1).Stabilize the e-tow~~ organization in the City of Bouldei by bccoming property owners rather than lessees. (E-town has been operating out of rented offices in Boulder for 15 years). 2). Allow greater diversity and creativity in e-town artists and products. CurrenUy, in order for e- town to bring an artist into Boulder to record, a certain amount of substantially priced tickets must be sold at the Boulder theatre to cover operating costs. A smaller facility, owned by the e- town organization would allow e-town to expose more local artists by providing an opportunity for smaller artists and local artists to occasionally perform at the subject location. In addition, e- town is considering "e-town for television" in which artist performances / interviews would be video taped for broadcast. Since the Boulder Theatre is not set up for television production, a portion of the church could potentially be set up as a television studio / television production facility to host such television performances. 3). Extend the reach of the e-town mission by providing a community benefit by hosting community meetings, lectures, and workshops. Incidentally, E-town has a staff of 10 people. Regular office hours are from 9:30-5:30 p.m. ,~~FNDA ITERA # 5~ PAGE ~ Monday-Friday. Occasional performances would take place on weekend afternoons and evenings from (7:00-9:00 p.m. latest) E-town does not propose to serve alcohol or host late-night events. Since the property is currently used as rental offices, e-town feel that impacts on the neighborhood could be reduced through the proposed uses. Development Summary: City of Boulder Land Use Regulations, defines "broadcast and recording studio" as follows: A studio for the purpose of broadcasting radio or television, or a studio for recording live performances. Per Section 9-3.1-1(a)(48), B.R.C., 1981 , broadcast and recordingstudios in the HZ-E zone district require Use Review. Per Section 9-4-9(c), Use Reviews for non residential uses in residential zoning districts require a Planning Board hearing. As discussed in the pre application meeting of March 22, 2006, the subject site is a former church building and is non-conforming due to the lack of legal parking spaces on site. (The parking requirement For non-residential uses in the HZ-E zone district is one space for every 300 square feet of floor area). Due to the non-confonning parking on site, the subject proposal would be reviewed using the additional non-conforming review criteria provided in Section 9-4-9(e). Applicant Questions: 1). I would like clarification as to the definition of "indoor entertainmenP' as opposed to "broadcast and recording" facilities and how they may affect our potential use. For example, if the recording takes place in front of a small audience, is that considered "broadcast and recarding" or "indoor entertainmenY'? As mentioned above Section 9-1-3(a), 1981 defines "broadcasting and recording facility" as a studio for the purpose of broadcasting radio or television, or a studio for recording of live performances. Section 9-1-3(a) defines an "indoor amusement establishment" as a commercial operation open to the public without membership requirements, including, without limitation, bowling alleys, indoor arcades, movie theaters, pool halls, and skating rinks. Please note that 9-31-1(a) does not permit indoor amusement establishments in the HZ-E zoning district. Further, the proposed uses do not apply to "indoor amusement." A live performance recording in front of a small audience appears as if it would be considered a part of the broadcasting and recording facility use, however, it is important that some indication as to what constitutes a"small audience" is made and is communicated as early as possible in the review process. ~G~NDA ITEhA # S'~PAGE ~.[ 2). What is the time required to process a Use Review application? Approximately 3-4 months depending on how many revisions (to plans) are required prior to scheduling a Planning Board hearing. 3). There is a current non-conforming parking situation on the subject site. With a Use Review, will this change? E-town has a small staff of 10 people, all but one of whom live within walking or biking distance from the proposed site. Because of e-town's mission and purpose, walking and biking our part of our culture. Since the church is cunently leased as offices, I suspect the impact would be negligible and may even represent an improvement over current uses. Thc non-conforming status of the property will not change, however, under Use Review, it may be possible to accommodate the proposed uses at the subject location if it can be justified that the proposed use will reduce impacts (parking and otherwise) on the property. The burden of demonstrating the reduced parking impacts lies on the applicant to demonstrate. In addition, providing a parking management plan designed to deal with larger events where more require parking is anticipated may also be beneFcial. I would like some direction as to whether or not Use Review is the most ef~cient option and whether rezoning from HZ-E to RB may be possible? Since it is possible to accommodate the proposed uses through the Use Review process, Use Review is the preferred option. The Ciry's land use and zoning designations are established in conformance with the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and a rezoning for this particular property would not likely be justified or supported. Add itio n al In fo rm atio n: You may wish to attend a Whittier Neighborhood Association meeting to discuss your proposal with the neighborhood and receive preliminary input from the ncighbors. The following is a link to the Whittier Neighborhood Association which contains contact information and meeting dates and times: http://www.ci.boulder.co.us/neiQhborhood/ores/nhwhitt.htm Additionally, you may wish to contact Molly Winter, Director of the Downtown ! University Hill Management Division and Parking Services at (303)441-7317 to discuss the possibility of arranging off street parking in nearby garages during off-peak hours. Upon taking possession of the property, you may wish to pursue historic designation of the structure (to integrate with the proposed Whittier Historic District). Please contact James Hewatt, Historic Preservation Pla~mer at (303)441-3207 for further information regarding historic preservation designation. It should also be noted that although the building is not currentiy designated historic, it may be considered a"contributing" structure. During plaru~ing of any renovations, you may find it helpful to consuit James Hewatt early in the planning process. Comments provided by City staff are based on the information received at the time of the pre-application meeting and do not constitute an approval or conditions of appro»a[ for the a,GERIDA Il°~P~i # 5B PAGE ~~ application. Additional staff comments and project requirements wi[l be provided to the applicant after review of a formal application submittal. All devetopment applications are required to comply with all applicable City of Boulder codes and ordinances. These comments reflect staff's understanding of the pre application meeting discussion. Please contact Charles Ferro at (303) 441-4012 for further discussion, iFrequired. S:~PLAN\data\cur\PREAPPS\1535 Spruce e-town.CF.doc ;;U~~v~ra,~~~#?~ ~aG~...~/ Attachment B ~ CITY OF BOULDER ~/~`j~~r Planning and Developm ~' ~'~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • ~ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 3 CIT LAND USE REVIE DATE OF COMMENTS: September 8, 2006 ent Services P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 03-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net Y OF BOULDER W RESULTS AND COMMENTS CASE MANAGER: Charles Ferro PROJECT NAME: e-Town Non Conforming Use Review LOCATION: 1535 SPRUCE ST COORDINATES: N03W06 REVIEW TYPE: Use Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2006-00067 APPLICANT: NICK FORSTER DESCRIPTION: Convert existing office building to office, recording, editing, community meetings and occasional small scale perFormances uses. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: N/A I. REVIEW FINDINGS The subject application requves revisions in order for staff to recommend approval of the proposed Use Review. Additional info~matio~ is required i~ order to determine potential impacts on the surrounding neighborhood. Based on comments below, potentially significant upgrades to the building may be required in order to legally convert the existing structure to office / broadcast/recording use. Please address the following staff comments and resubmit fifteen copies of review documents directly to a project specialist (located in the front lobby of the Planning and Development Services Department - 1739 Broadway, 3rtl floor) during regular business hours. Per Section 9-4-9(c), B.R C., 1981, Planning Board action is required for the subject Use Review application. A Planning Board hearing has tentatively been scheduled for December 7, 2006 at 6:00 P.M. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Building and Housing Codes Due to the proposed change of use, the building must be provided with complete handicap access including without limitation an elevator that serves all floors. Additional restrooms must be provided and adding handicap restrooms for each sex. Steve Brown. 441-3172 Building Design To reduce potential impacts from occasional live performances, staff recommends the applicant consult an acoustical engineer prior to resubmittal to assess the existing acoustical conditions of the building and whether upgrades to the existing building will be required to mitigate potential noise impacts on surrounding property owners that may result from live performances. Additionally, the assessment of the building should include an indication as to what the maximum potential decibel level outside the church would be during a live performance. Any proposed acoustical upgrades to reduce potential noise impacts from live performances should be indicated on the proposed plans. Additionally, the HZ-E zoning district has a 35 foot building height restriction (based on the City's definition of height contained in Section 9-1-3, B.R.C., 1981). Plans should indicate proposed roof alterations will occur underfuture permits. Charles Ferro (303)441-4012 Fees Please note that 2006 development review fees include a$128 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response (these written comments). Please see the PBDS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST ~ ~~ ~,(3~IVDA 1TER4 #.~,~.~--PAGE o-~- Fire Protection Exiting from the 2ntl level "classroom/office" area is currently in need of repair and must be corrected. Live performances or other special activities must be limited to not exceed 50 persons or the area will be required to have an automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system installed as if it were being built new. David Lowrey 303.441.4356 Land Uses Office use and Broadcast and Recording uses are permitted in the HZ-E zoning district through Use Review. As mentioned in staff's pre application summary to the applicant on March 24, 2006: "A live performance recording in ironf of a small audience appears as if it would be considered accessory to a b~oadcasting and recording facility use, however, it is important that some indication as to what constitutes a"sma/1 audience" is made and is communicated as early as possible in fhe review process." While the applicant's narrative statement indicates the building has a total capacity of 250 people, a"small audience," accessory to the proposed broadcast and recording use would constitute approximately 30-45 people in order to remain an accessory use. An occupancy for occasional live performances in excess of 45 people becomes more of a principal use, thereby triggering significant building upgrades (refer to "Fire Protection" above) and a principal theatre use which is not permitted under the HZ-E zoning district. An occupancy in excess of 45 people would also trigger parking required to support a principal use. It may be possible to hold larger events on an infrequent basis (o~ce or twice a year) as an accessory use, however, all required fire department and building department requirements would have to be satisfied. Staff supports the administrative office uses as well as closed session recordings and broadcasts however, concerns remain over the compatibility of live performances open to the public, specifically regarding noise generated from performances as well as neighborhood disruptions resulting from crowd dispersal. As mentioned below in "Plan Documents" specific details regarding operational characteristics must be presented in order for staff to make a determination as to the impacts of the proposed uses and how said impacts relate to the Use Review criteria. Based on recent neighborhood input and staff's analysis of the proposed application, it seems that impacts from occasional live performances could be reduced if occasional live performances started and ended earlier, similar to a place of worship. Legal Documents 1. A letter update to the title commitment current to within 30 days is required. 2. Proof of authorization on behalf of Tebo Partnership LLLP is required. Julia Chase, City Attorney's Office, Ph. (303) 441-3020. Neighborhood Comments Please refer to the attached neighborhood comments received via email. In addition, staff has received a phone call from the property owner at 2040 16'" Street expressing concern over crowds existing after live events disrupting customers at the Bradley Inn Bed and Breakfast during evening hours. Staff also received a phone call from the owner of the Pedestrian Shops at 1425 Pearl Street in support of the proposed application with appropriate conditions to reduce neighborhood impacts. Parking The site has one on-site parking space and is considered non conforming due to parking only. The surrounding area (Whittier neighborhood) has on street parking available to residents only through a residential parking permit system. Under the Code's definition for nonconforming uses, the existing and proposed uses are nonconforming due to the lack of parking. It must be clearly demonstrated that the proposed uses will have an equivalent or lesser parking requirement than the use being replaced. While staff agrees that the small number of full time e-Town employees and e-Town's employee eco pass program will help reduce the amount of daily required parking, a parking plan will be required as part of the management plan (refer to "Plan Documents" below) to address parking needs for occasional weekend performances prior to a recommendation of approval. Staff recommends utilizing the City's garage located at 1500 Pearl for occasional live performances as garage parking is free and generally more available on weekends. Additionally, the required management plan must also include a description of how e-Town will encourage alternative modes of transportation and parking in the public garage during occasional live performances. Charles Ferro (303)441-4012 The applicant has had meetings regarding parking with the Parking Service director to discuss parking options for the site. There are a number of tools to consider. The location is very close to the City's 1500 Pearl parking facility with 656 parking spaces that are not fully utilized. The applicant may apply to be placed on the wait list for parking permits. (The location is adjacent to a daytime NPP zone - which is a parking management tool). Parking Services offers validations for Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST /~, .aii~IVl[)A 17'EP~d # ~ PA~,~ ~ parking and our structures are free on Saturday and Sundays. Also, parking enforcement is a tool we use to manage parking. We do not make parking "agreements" per se with businesses or propeRy owners but can work with E-town to develop a menu of parking options to reduce neighborhood impacts. Molly Winter (303) 413-7317 Plan Documents While the applicanYs narrative statement provides general detail regarding operating characteristics, staff recommends that a formal management plan be drafted and submitted to specifically address the following: -Mitigation of potential noise impacts on surrounding residential properties resulting from occasional live performances / closed recording and /or broadcast sessions. (based on acoustical engineer's assessment of the building). -Methods to manage security, loitering, and crowd dispersal before and after events. -Parking plan for employees and attendees of occasional live performances (see "Parking° above) including an explanation of how e-Town will encourage alternative modes of transportation and parking in public garages during live performances. -Times of live occasional performances. -Frequency of occasional live performances (maximum number anticipated per month) -Business responsibilities as good neighbors -Neighborhood outreach and methods for future communication. -Methods for future dispute resolution with the surrounding neighborhood. -Location for equipment loading and unloading. -Coordinated times for deliveries and trash removal. Consideration should be given to demonstrating compliance with the attached Use Review criteria and the following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan policy in preparation of the required management plan. Policy 2.17 Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non-~esidential Zones. The city and county will take app~opriate actions to ensure that the character and livab~6ty o/ established residentiai neighborhoods will not be undermined by spill-over impacts from adjacent regional or community business zones or by incremental expansion of business activities into residential areas. The city and counfy wdl protect ~esidential neighborhoods from intrusion of non-~es~dential uses by protecting edges and regulating the rmpacts of these uses on neighborhoods. Review Process Per Section 9-4-9(c), non-residential uses in residential zoning districts require Planning Board approval. Prior to Planning Board review, staff recommends holding a neighborhood meeting to provide the neighborhood an opportunity to review the proposed management plan as well as to voice any concerns about the proposed uses. The applicant should arrange for a venue, date and time and provide staff with at least 15 days notice of the proposed meeting. Staff will prepare mailing notification letters for property owners within 600 feet of the property and will place an ad in the Sunday Daily Camera 10 days prior to the meeting. The applicant may wish to retain a mediator for the meeting as well. Charles Ferro (303)441-4012 III. NEXT STEPS Please address the following staff comments and resubmit fifteen copies of review documents directly to a project specialist (located in the front Iobby of the Planning and Development Services Department - 1739 Broadway, 3`~ floor) during regular business hours. Prior to resubmittal, the applicant should arrange a venue, date, and time for a neighborhood meeting in September or early October. IV. CHECKLIST Attached are the criteria by which staff will evaluate the Use Review request. Upon receipt of revisions, staff will perform an analysis of the subject criteria for the required Planning Board hearing. Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST ~-j~j r~,tiF:11f~F1 ~Y~EPv7 Pa.- `..F~AC~ F.~ _ USE REVIEW CRITERIA (1) Consistencv with Zoninq 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; (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; (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 non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or (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 minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; (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; (5) Character of Area: The use wili not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and (6) Conversion of Dweliinq 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-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the 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 educational use. (e) Additional Criteria for Modifications to Non-Conforming Uses: No application for a change to ~ non-conforming use shall be granted unless all of the following criteria are met in addition to the criteria set forth above: (1) Reasonable Measures Required: The applicant has undertaken all reasonabie measures to reduce or alleviate the effects of the non-conformity upon the surrounding area, including, without limitation, objectionable conditions, glare, visual pollution, noise pollution, air emissions, vehicular traffic, storage of equipment, materials, and refuse, and on-street parking, so that the change will not adversely affect the surrounding area; • 1535 SPRUCE ST rdii~i~17FA I7P`"cPiPo # ~ F'/a~`a~ ~ -,.__ (2) Reduction in Non-Conformity/Improvement of Appearance: The proposed change or expansion will either reduce the degree of non-conformity of the use or improve the physical appearance of the structure or the site without increasing the degree of non-conformity; (3) Compliance with this Title/Exceptions: The proposed change in use complies with all of the requirements of this title: (A) Except for a change of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use; and (B) Unless a variance to the setback requirements has been granted pursuant to Section 9-3.6- 2, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or the setback has been varied through the appiication of the requirements of Section 9-4-11, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981; and (4) Cannot Reasonably be Made Conforming: The existing building or lot cannot reasonably be utilized or made to conform to the requirements of Chapters 9-3.1, "Uses of Land," 9-3.2, °Bulk and Density Standards," 9-3.3, "Site Development Standards," or 9-3.4, "Specific Use Standards and Criteria," B.R.C. 1981; (5) No Increase in Floor Area over Ten Percent: The change or expansion will not result in an increase in floor area of more than ten percent of the existing floor area; and (6) Approving Authority May Grant Zoning Variances: The approving authority may grant the variances permitted by Subsection 9-3.6-2(a), B.R.C. 1981, upon finding that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-3.6-2(f1, B.R.C. 1981, have been met. 1535 SPRUCE ST ~ ~t,~„~,g~~ {°p°~p'~~t xr~,y~/s~~ ~. Attachment C i.~ CITY OF BOULDER a, ~~,.,~~- Planning and Development Services ~~ ~'~ 1739 Broadway, Third Floor • P.O. Box 791, Boulder, CO 80306-0791 ~ phone 303-441-1880 • fax 303-441-3241 • web boulderplandevelop.net CITY OF BOULDER LAND USE REVIEW RESULTS AND COMMENTS DATE OF COMMENTS: June 5, 2007 CASE MANAGER: Charles Ferro PROJECT NAME: E-TOWN NON CONFORMING USE REVIEW LOCATION~ 1535 SPRUCE ST COORDINATES: N03W06 REVIEW TYPE: Non Conforming Use Review REVIEW NUMBER: LUR2006-00067 APPLICANT: NICK FORSTER DESCRIPTION: Nonconforming use review to permit office use, live recording, audio editing, community meetings, and live performances with 250 auidence member up to 12 times per month. REQUESTED VARIATIONS FROM THE LAND USE REGULATIONS: Not Applicable I. REVIEW.FINDINGS Staff is supportive of the proposed office, closed session live recording, broadcasting, editing, and community meeting uses; however, staff cannot support the live performance component of the proposed application as proposed. The proposed occupancy and frequency of live performances cannot be considered accessory or ancillary to the proposed broadcast and recording uses and the proposed application will be recommended for denial to the Planning Board. A Planning Board hearing has been scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 6:00 P.M. in the City Council Chambers located at 1777 Broadway. II. CITY REQUIREMENTS Building and Housing Codes The exiting arrangement shown for the spaces does not allow for an occupant load greater than 50 Establishing an Assembly use would require that the spaces be made to comply with the requirements of the current International Building Code (IBC sec. 3406), which include: • A minimum of two code complying exits with appropriate hardware and doors that swing in the direction of egress travel (IBC sec. 1008.1.2 and Table 1014.1). • An automatic sprinkler system (IBC sec. 903.2.1.3). • Accessibility as per IBC chapter 11. • The west wall must meet IBC table 602 requirements for fire-resistance rating based on fire separation distance. • The west wall openings must be within the limits of IBC table 704.8 Kirk Moors (303) 441-3172 Fees Please note that 2007 development review fees include a$128 hourly rate for reviewer services following the initial city response. Please see the P&DS Questions and Answers brochure for more information about the hourly billing system. Fire Protection Exiting from the 2nd level "classroom/office" area is currently in need of repair and must be corrected. Due to the Assembly use created by the proposed use, live performances or other special activities must be limited to not exceed 50 persons, or the area will be requved to have an automatic fire sprinkler and alarm system installed as if it were being built new. David Lowrey 303.441.4356 Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST ~~~@~~A ITEP~! #~PAGE // Historic Preservation Comments regarding historic preservation are forthcoming. Please contact James Hewat at 303-441-3207. Land Use ( Zoning (Charles Ferro, 303-441-4~12) Office use and Broadcast and Recording uses are permitted in the RH-2 zoning district through Use Review. As mentioned in staff's pre application summary to the applicant on March 24, 2006: "A lrve performance recording in front of a small audience appears as if it would be considered accessory to a broadcasting and recording facility use, however, it is impoRanf that some indication as to what constitutes a"small audience" is made and is communicated as early as possible in the review process." The applicant's Use Review application requests occasional, small scale live performances with an occupancy of 250 people up to 12 times a month. Staff Sinds the proposal to be of a scale and frequency more closely resembling that of a principal use, rather than an accessory use to a broadcasUrecording facility. While the applicanYs narrative statement indicates the building has a total capacity of 250 people, a"small audience° accessory to the proposed broadcast and recording use would constitute a maximum of approximately 45 people, in order to remain an accessory use (as mentioned in staff's comments from September, 2006). A principal use would trigger significant building upgrades (refer to "Fire Protection" above) and a principal theatre use, which is not permitted under the RH-2 zoning district. Occupancy in excess of 45 people would also trigger parking requirements to support a principal use. As proposed by staff in the original pre application from March, 2006 and the previous Development Review Comments from September, 2006, it may be possible to hold larger events on an infrequent basis (once or twice a year) as an accessory use, provided all required Fire and Building department requirements were satisfied. Staff supports the Use Review for administrative office uses as well as closed session recordings and broadcasts, as permitted by the RH-2 zoning district. While the letter provided from the acoustical engineer indicates that the building may be retrofitted to attenuate sounds generated from live performances, significant concerns continue to exist regarding times of performances, neighborhood disruptions resulting from loitering, crowd dispersal, parking, loading and unloading. While the management plan addresses these concerns, it appears that the proposed uses may have negative impacts on surrounding properties. Neighborhood Comments (Charles Ferro, 303-441-4012) Please find the attached correspondences. The applicant held a neighborhood meeting on October 16, 2007 which approximately 25 people attended. At the meeting, neighbors expressed concerns regarding the the number of audience members, the frequency and times of live performances, parking imapcts, noise impacts created from live perFormances, impacts from crowd dispersal, and loitering. Park+ng (Charles Ferro, 303-441-4012) Staff agrees the provision of Eco Passes to employees will reduce required parking impacts on-site, however, as noted in the previous staff review, the property is considered nonconforming due to a lack of conforming on-site parking to serve the building for the proposed office uses and live performances. Although the property is not located within the Central Area Improvement District (CAGID), the property is located approximately 450 feet from a public parking garage. In order to provide adequate parking for employees, the applicant would be required to purchase yearly parking garage permits from the Parking Services Division. As an alternative, the subject property is located within the Whittier Neighborhood Parking District, therefore, the applicant is eligible to purohase neighborhood parking permits for employees. Some credit may be given for the existing on-site parking, however, it must be demonstrated that the parking is functional. In the event some type of live performance arrangement is approved through the Use Review process, audience members will be required to park in the nearby Pearl Street garages or other nearby public parking spaces. Plan Documents Plan documents indicate window replacements as well as roof modifications. Please note that separate building permits will be required for alterations to the building and will not be considered as a part of the subject Use Review application. III. INFORMATIONAL COMMENTS Zoning (Charles Ferro, 303-441-4012) The RH-2 zoning district is defined as a residential, high-density zone district. While a place of worship is a"by-righY' use in the RH-2 zoning district, broadcast and recording facilities are only permitted through the Use Review process. Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST ,1G~~~~~ ~~,~~.~;F ~~~~~`~ IV. NEXT STEPS Please note that per Section 9-2-15(d)(1), B.R.C., 1981, Planning Board action is required for Use Review applications that propose non-residential uses in residential zoning districts. A Planning Board hearing has been scheduled for July 5, 2007. The Use Review process provides for two revisions. Should the applicant choose to amend the management plan to reduce the amount of audience members and the frequency of live performances, staff will reschedule the Planning Board hearing to allow sufficient time for a final review, otherwise, staff will move forward with a recommendation for denial to the Planning Board for the July 5, 2007 hearing. The applicant must provide 18 copies of the proposed plans to the Case Manager by June 12, 2007. Please contact the Case Manager with questions regarding submittal requirements. V. CITY CODE CRITERIA CHECKLIST Upon a final staff recommendation for approval or denial, staff will complete an analysis of the attached criteria. VI. CONDITIONS ON CASE Conditions of approval will be drafted upon a recommendation of approval if applicable. Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST a~i:hN1L7€~ ~`TEP~R ~~ PqGE ~ USE REVIEW CRITERYA (1) Consistencv with Zoninp 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; (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; (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 non- residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or (D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thefeto 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 minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; (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; (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and (6) Conversion of Dwellinq 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 Subsectio~ 9-3.1-1(a), B.R.C. 1981, to ~on- residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the 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 educational use. (e) Additional Criteria for Modifications to Non-Conforming Uses: No application for a change to a non-conforming use shall be granted unless all of the followi~g criteria are met in addition to the critena set forth above: (1) Reasonable Measures Required: The applicant has undertaken all reasonable measures to reduce or alleviate the effects of the non-conformity upon the surrounding area, including, without limitation, objectionable conditions, glare, visual polluUOn, noise pollution, air emissions, vehicular traffic, storage of equipment, matenals, and refuse, and on-street parking, so that the change will not adversely affect the surrounding area; (2) Reduction in Non-Conformity/Improvement of Appearance: The proposed change or expansion will either reduce the degree of non-conformity of the use or improve the physical appearance of the structure or the site without increasing the degree of non-conformity; (3) Compliance with this Title/Exceptions: The proposed change in use complies with all of the requirements of this title: (A) Except for a change of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use; and (B) Unless a variance to the setback requirements has been granted pursuant to Section 9-3.6-2, "Variances and Interpretations," B.R.C. 1981, or the setback has been varied through the application of the requirements of Section 9-4- 11, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981; and (4) Cannot Reasonably be Made Conforming: The existing building or lot cannot reasonably be utilized or made to conform to the requirements of Chapters 9-3.1, "Uses of Land," 9-3.2, "Bulk and Density Standards," 9-3.3, "Site Development Standards," or 9-3.4, "Specific Use Standards and Criteria," B.R.C. 1981; Address: 1535 SPRUCE ST si(a~i~iC,l~~ ~7EYv~ #t ~~~+/a~~~,~!'~ (5) No Increase in Floor Area over Ten Percent: The change or expansion will not result in an increase in floor area of more than ten percent of the existing floor area; and (6) Approving Authority May Grant Zoning Variances: The approving authority may grant the variances permitted by Subsection 9-3.6-2(a), B.R.C. 1981, upon finding that the criteria set forth in Subsection 93.6-2(fl, B.R.C. 1981, have been met. Address:«ADDRESS» ;~,~ng~tAa~~i~# ~pAG~ ~~_ Attachment D City of Bou~aer vicinity Map " ~~~LR=~EY~~~ , `~. LR=E ~ ~ ~ ~~~ LR-E ~ ;~~ rt _ - ~" Nlap!etOn=~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~~ - ~- - ~ ~ _ , _ - ~ ~ , _,- ~ , ~~, --- -. _ - , `,; '~, . - . -- ~ ~ , --~ ~ ~; - ,, _ _ , , , _ , - - ~ ~--- - ~' ' Subject Area ~ ~ ~ ~~ ' ~ ~~ ~ ~' 1535 Spruce St ~ ' ~ - ~ ~ ~a ~t - ~ ~~ `$ p~ne ,-. < ,~~y ' ~~"~'~~"`_ "~°~~c ~ , - ~ i- ~~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ '~ ~ ; . ~ ~ ' ~ ~ , ~ ~ ' ~ ~ N '. _ CA ~ rt ~ HZ-E ~~~ - ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ _ „~,~ ~,' ; ~~ ~ ~ . ~ -- , C7i A ~ r+ _ - . ,- ; ~ - ~ , - - _ -~ , ` r: ~`~, p. -~-~~~~ SPru~e st ` ` ~o-~~ ~~,~ rt .:p~ ~ , J.. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~.~~,~ ~ ~~ ~ : ~ ~.~ ~ ~~ --RB2-E ~2 `~ RB2-X ~~~~ r RB~2-X ~ ~ w~ ~ ~, `, _ ~ ', ~ ~ _- - ~, ~~ ~ ' ( h ~~~ , . 1 ~ } ~~~~ ~,~~', ~ '~ ~~ _ Pear~f:~st `~~ ~ ~~ 1 k `,, - , - ~ RB1-E'_ - -- ~~ ~,~~. = - , , ~ ,,, , ~ , ~, , , ~ ~ `~- ,-_ ,_ , { . , _ _ -- --- ,~ ~; ~ - ,-, << ~ ~ ~ - `~ ~ ~ '' ~~~~~ _, - ~~" ~~. ~ ~_.~ ~ f~ ~ `' ~ RB 1 ~-X - ~~~~~ - - ~~..., , ~ ~ ~, - ~~~ _~ ,__ ~. ~~ .\ ~; ~: _ ~ _~T ~ ~; _" ~ ~~ ~ , HZ-E , ;-~, ` --,~ `---~ ,nut st _ ~; ~RB2-X `:" ,f . --~ ~~, ~~, _ _- - ~ Wa_ - ~ ~ ~ ,`~ ~, ~ ~~~, _ , - ~ ~ -- , Location; 1535 Spruce St I Project Name: ETown Non Conforming Use Review Type: Non Conforming Use Review Number: LUR2006-00067 ~~~~~ 1 inch equals 200 feet c~ry ~f -/~'f~.•~'1~ Boulder ~ The mforma~ion tlep¢ted on lhis map is prawtled as graph¢al represen~a6on onty The City o! Boultle~ prowdes no warran~y, expresseC ar implietl, as fo Ihe accuracy antl/or completeness otlhe~rmation ~....,~...~.._.__a--rl . ri i nterior Views 1535-1539 Spruce ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^ on~n on ex a ~ ~~ ~ -~ ~~~ ~ ~~. a 0 3' (~ 1535 SPRUCE ~ ~~_ _ 0 ~--~ 4~` ~ 0 ,T ~~ -, ~. ~ ~, ~ 0 Building Footprints Main Roads ~ Arterial ~/ Highway Street Centerlines ~ Survey Polygons ~ ~ Lakes r* ~ Ownership Parcels n Zoning Districts ~ ~ DT-1 (Downtown 1) ~ ~ DT-2 (Downtown 2) ~ ~ DT-3 (Downtown 3) '"* 0 DT-4 (Downtown 4) ~ 0 DT-5 (Downtown 5) 0 RH-2 (Residential High ~, 0 RM-3 (Residential Medium 3) ~ RMX-1 (Residential Mixed 1) ~ City Limits N E 0.08 0 0.08 0.16 Miles ~ S Attachment G N~r • $ ~i June 11, 2~07 ~l~` ~deas. Camm°c Charles Ferro, AICP Planner il City of Boulder Planning and Development Services Department Dear Charles: In an effort to address some of your concerns as to impact, and after some conversations with the neighbors (particularly the owners of the Bradley Hotel), I would like to clarify my application in regards to hours of operation and types of use in the sanctuary. First, in response to some feedback from neighbors, I would like to change the end time of recorded events in the sanctuary as listed in my application from 10PM to 9PM. Second, as a matter of clarification, I would like to explain that, while etown currently records between 2 and 4 shows per month, some of the activities planned for the proposed site would be smaller in size and scope than a full etown taping. As mentioned in our current application, we are asking for 12 uses of the sanctuary per month, consistent with current use with three church services per week. My clarification here is simply to state that, among the proposed 12 uses per month, several of those uses would be smaller in scale and scope than a full etown taping. We are, of course, not able to predict exact uses, but are trying to anticipate a reasonable range of potential uses. My sense is that there could be small meetings or workshops, poetry readings, lunch-hour recorded performances and master classes mixed in with the more robust etown tapings. All of these activities would be recorded, but not ail of these activities would be as large in scale as an etown show. Lastly, as mentioned in the application, most etown shows, particularly the ones that are larger and louder, will continue to be recorded at the Boulder Theater or in other venues. The events planned for this location would be smaller, more acoustic in nature and less invasive than what I fear has become the common misperception: "loud rock shows in a neighborhood location". Th k you for the opportunity to clarify and amend my application. i cerel , Nick Forster Executive Director ~~~~p~ ~~E~ ~ ~~~~~ as Summary - to house etown, the non-profit radio production company. While most etown shows will still be taped at the Boulder Theater, etown hopes to house its offices, recording and editing facilities and to have select meetings or performances at this location. etown Overview Etown is a 501(c)3 Not-for-profit corporation that has been in operation in Boulder for more than 15 years. In the course of our normal act~vities, we produce a weekly radio show for distribution to our stations around the country. The show is taped in front of a live audience, often at the Boulder Theater, but occasionally at Chautauqua, Macky Auditorium or other venues around the country. Every etown show is a mixture of music and information, interviews and opinion. We are proud of the fact that we have been in continuous operation here in Boulder and are able to represent in some ways, the values of our hometown to radio listeners throughout the United States. II. Current etown Operations We produce between 25 and 30 new shows per year, and edit older shows to re-run during the weeks when we do not have new shows ready. We have a staff that is divided into two distinct categories: production and administration. We have 8 full time employees, two part time employees and between 2 and 5 volunteers who work in the etown offices. Our hours of operation are from 9:30 in the morning until 6PM. We occasionally have activities that extend into the evening (grant application deadlines, post production of shows) but that is the exception rather than the rule. Our staff is roughly 70% involved with the production of the shows (booking, research, script writing, editing, distribution, show logistics, remixing, etc.) and 30% in administration (bookkeeping, development, fundraising, management, office reception). III. Planned Uses at Proposed Site We are hoping to continue our cunent activities in the new location, but add several key elements. Occasionally, when the ar[ists who are scheduled for an etown appearance aze not wei known, the Boulder Theater is too big for us, forcing us to either cancel what could otherwise be an interesting show with lesser know artists, or simply change the content of the show to attract a bigger crowd. With the new location, we would hope to utilize the sanctuary of the church to hold those smaller shows from time to time. I expect that we would continue to use the Boulder Theater as our primary venue, but this would give us the chance to feature a more adventurous line of programming, including lesser :u~IVP3A IT~PJ~ #~ ~.I~AC~ ~ 4 . ~~ ~e.m temm°e known musicians from around the world, from other states and, more importantly, from Colorado. Also, we often bring in special guests (Jimmy Carter, Jane Goodall, Amy Goodman, etc.) who find themselves in Boulder with extra time on their hands and only a very short commitment with etown. We'd like to offer the sanctuary as an occasional meeting place or lecture hall for a special workshop, reading or gathering with some of these very special guests. In addition, we could offer master classes with some of our musical guests (Leo Kottke giving a guitar workshop), classes from our e-chievement award winners on how to replicate their work in other communities, poetry readings from special guests or small acoustic concerts. And, this hall would be used by the community. The Whittier neighborhood meetings would be held here on a monthly basis, for example. All of this activity would add up to one or two events per week, roughly the equivalent of an average church facility's use, if not even lower. IV. Planned Changes to Proposed Site The site is, essentiaily, three adjoining structures: the church, the gymnasium and the offices. We do not at this time anticipate needing to do any significant exterior improvements to the facility. If we are able to proceed, we will contract engineers to determine the current state of the roof, HVAC system, the structural integrity of the building and the plumbing and electrical systems. The actual church structure will need relatively little modification for our purposes. We would need to install some lights, recording and sound reinforcement (P.A. system) in the main hall. We may want to raise the ceiling of the "stage" area behind the pulpit in order to enhance the audio characteristics of that space. By the way, there is already a P.A. system in there that is roughly the same size as what etown would need. It does not need to be a huge system that would be unnecessarily loud in order to work well for us. In fact, for recording, the lower stage volumes often produce better results. The kitchen downstairs, in what used to be the Salvation Army's kitchen, will need considerable upgrading. The roof above the gym will be raised to match the rest of the existing roof height, which will not exceed the height limit of 35 feet. The office structure will also need considerable interior renovation which could include some moving of interior walls, upgrading of electrical service, replacement of single pane windows, possible addition of new windows, replacement of some floor panels, carpet and the possible addition of skylights or the possible raising of the roof on the third floor of the office structure. I have consulted Oz Architecture to explore some of these changes and upgrades. We would also be adding some soundproofing to the parts of the building where any recording, editing or other post production work might take place. And, we would anticipate improving some of the exterior landscaping. tY~.nl,.OtlG~ 91 ~IIIR Y~ ~.~/lA~~ ~ / w~vu~ulnurn n~n a ~` ~e~o~ cem~'"~ V. Work Patterns and Hours of operation As mentioned above, our normal work activity is Monday through Friday, 9:30 AM to 6PM. When we have shows at the Boulder Theater, office activity can begin around 9AM and continue throughout the day. If we were to have shows taped at this location, they would most often be on Sunday evenings from 7 PM until 9PM. Occasionally, we have shows on other days due to scheduling conflicts with our artists, but those shows would generally follow the same schedule. As to the lectures or workshops, iYs hard to say when they might occur, but I would guess that they would be an even mix of daytime and evening activities, and again, not very often. VI. Staff Transportation and Parking Because of etown's philosophy of helping to build conscious and sustainable communities, most of our employees either walk or ride bikes to work. Donna, Rick, Cheryl, Helen and I a(1 live within a mile of this location, some as close as two blocks away. The proximity to the downtown bus station, combined with the fact that we provide eco passes to all of our employees, make our staff impact on the neighborhood relatively modest That does not mean that there will be no impact, since the site currently has three or four parking spots, and I cannot speak to the degree to which they conform with city standards as to size and setbacks. We will explore the possibility of buying permits in one or both of the nearby parking structures (I S`h and Spruce, 16`" and Pearl). VII. Event Parking and Impact When we have events, we will make every effort to inform and educate our patrons as to the availability of parking in the structures nearby. We do know from past experience that etown attendees tend to be willing to embrace our values and our suggestions. We hope, therefore, that we will be able to develop over a short period of time, sensitivity to the needs of the neighborhood on those occasions when we do have gatherings at this location. Again, we do not expect the impact on the neighborhood to be out of line with what a reasonable use of an active church might be. VIII.Neighborhood Perspective I met with the Whittier Neighborhood to talk about the idea of this "etown Hall° and to exp(ore the various neighborhood concerns. Clearly, there will be concerns as to impact wi ~FYdL`~G, +X~1'e~ # ~ Cr~~H~'i~ ~ ~ `iee,r cam`~~'c (parking, noise, traffic), but those concerns were not, surprisingly, particularly grave concerns at the meeting. There was a general level of interest in and support far (please see the enclosed letter of support form Vicki Naber, chairperson the Whittier Neighborhood Association) this project. My sense was that there is cautious optimism that the church building would add another cultural and civic benefit to the downtown corridor, that etown's values as a non-profit entity are not inconsistent with those of a church in terms of general building of a values based community and that the building would benefit from a more active and engaged owner. And, they asked if the monthly neighborhood meetings could be held there if we were to take possession. Clearly, however, we take the issues of impact seriously, and will be looking for guidance in the area of parking in particular. Our hope is that we can work with the neighborhood to dovetail as best we can with their existing permit parking system and, hopefully, help them deal with the issue as a whole. IX. Desired Outcomes / Community Benefits As property values rise, many of Boulder's cultural resources (let alone cultural diversity) are challenged in a variety of ways. Those entities that survive at all find themselves facing difficulties in maintaining audience, sustaining income sufficient to offset rising rents and the costs of doing business, and then the added challenge of delivering quality programming to a sophisticated audience in a time of lowering cultural awareness and expectations. In short, it's tough out there for any non-profit in the arts. Etown is no exception. We have rising costs at the Boulder Theater, rising costs for office space, rising costs for salaries, insurance, utilities and all overhead. And we have consistently fought keep our ticket prices below market rates (currently $15.00). We want to stay in Boulder; we want to continue to produce great shows both for our live audience and for our listening audience. And we want to be able [o continue to fulfill our mission of building community through music and ideas. This building represents a rare opportunity for us to find a stable home, connect with the community on a more tangible basis, support the economic vitality of downtown while actually walking our talk. As a former member of a variety of arts committees here in town, I have often heard of the lack of ineeting/performance space in the downtown area. I know that the library has a space, that the Boulder Theater is still active, and that there are a variety of small music clubs downtown. But, there is no particular p(ace for acoustic music in an alcohol free environment, and we would hope that the etown hall, not unlike the Denver Folklore Center (where I worked when I first moved to Colorado more than 30 years ago) could provide an occasional outlet for this type of performance. ;1t:EP9L7A 97E11J! # ~._PHC°aE ~~ W W W P~IIWl1 Ofll f ~ /dea~ [o~~,~ Lastly, the current, non-conforming use, includes the foilowing activities: a church which has three services a week; three floors of office space which is rented to a variety of tenants, a gymnasium which is used for martial arts classes. I would not be at all surprised if the etown use pattern would in fact represent a diminution of both use and impact on the neighborhood. This is in fact the third time that I have explored etown's occupancy of this property. I remain convinced that we are among the very few local organizations whose use of this facility would be consistent with both the historical use and the desired outcomes while still, hopefuily, bringing the use into compliance with City code. ,AG~'a19~)t\ 4~'~~l+d tr ~ ~A~~ ~ /" Attachment H ror • ~r : c ~"~deos.Comm, MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR ETOWN AND SUBJECT PROPERTY AT 1535 SPRUCE etown, a local non-profit organization, is applying for a use review for the property located at 1535 Spruce Street in Boulder. The initial narrative statement submitted with our application provided general detail regarding operating characteristics. We hereby submit a more detailed Management Plan in order to specifically indicate how the property will be managed and how impacts will be mitigated. The property will be used primarily as the administrative o~ces for etown and for post produchon of shows We anticipate the maximum capacity for each show will be two hundred. Mitigation of Noise from Performances We understand that this property is located in a block that is predominantly, though not exclusivety, residential. While there are residentrel neighbors in all directions, separated by either Spruce Street or the alley, there is a relatively short distance between the west wail of the Sanctuary and the bedrooms of the condominiums immediately to the west. The subject property has been a church for many years, with sizeable gatherings and music having been a prominent part of the proceedings, particularly when Unity Church was in residence. Even now, there are church services three times a week with live music with drums, electric bass, organ and preaching using an amplified sound system and microphones. I do not believe that there have been any formal complaints from the neighbors under the current circumstances. I recognize, however, that the absence of formal complaints doesn't mean that they do not hear any of the services currently. We hired Jim Borzym, from Borzym acoustics to study the situation and explore potential sound mitigation opportunities. He felt strongly that the problem exists primarily on the west side of the sanctuary. He felt that the walls are sufficiently thick to not transfer sound easily. He suggested that, since the three window wells on the west side were quite deep, it would be possfble to dramatically reduce the sound transference by installing two panes of additional glass (of different thicknesses) directly into the window wells. His initial report is enclosed. Further, we have conducted a decibel noise level test at the church with a professional recording engineer. We have included the results of those tests with the managemenf plan. II. Mitigation of Noise from Audience We recognize that any gathering of any size can produce noise from people coming in and leaving the gathering place. We are committed to placing staff on the street and in the doorway to ensure that the audience is encouraged to be respectful of the residential characteristics of the neighborhood. We anticipate attraciing a civilized audience, in that we wili be continuing to utilize the Boulder Theater for any shows that would be either louder or more rock oriented, and utilizing the "etown Hall" for smaller and more acoustic shows. However, we will not rely on simply "trusting" that our crowds will behave themselves, and, as mentioned above, will staff the entrance both before and after tapings. In addition we will make an announcement to be respectful of our neighbors during the show, and also make it known on the etown website. The rear of the property, currently a gymnasium, would be converted to a fully sound-proofed recording studio. Obviously, it is in our best interest to keep outside noise out, so the onus wouid be on us to ensure sound isolation in that structure as well. We anticipate no impact at all on the AG~NDN 17EkUi ti ~ PHG~ ~~ :r s ~ " ~e:a~~com^°p neighborhood from the proposed use in that space. III. Parking plan for employees and attendees of occasional live performances The sub~ect property is currently non-conforming, as it has very limited on-site parking (3 or 4 spaces, some of which are themselves non-conforming). We are committed to purchasing an appropriate number of parking permits to accommodate our full-time staff in the nearby parking structures. We have been in contact with Molly Winter and J Midyette's office to explore the possibility ot obtaining those permits. Additionally, etown is, by its nature, an organization that promotes alt-mode transportation. More than half of our staff currently resides within one mile of the proposed site, making walking or biking to work a very real possibility. And, we currently provide eco-passes to our staff, so some of the staff who live outside of Boulder could easily take the bus to the 14'h Street station, three blocks away. We believe that our impact on the neighborhood during regular business hours will be minimal And, since we have a very consistent voice throughout our programming, we feel that our audience is atso sensitive to the environmental impact of driving, and would do their part, especially if encouraged to do so, in minimizing the driving to the site for tapings We firmly believe that we can educate our audience, of the bus routes and schedules available, the bike paths nearby, and the options for carpooling, so that, when we do have tapings there, we can encourage people use these other methods of transportation. We wifl also offer discount tickets for anyone who shows us a parking garage receipt. IV. Times of Use We anticipate keeping office hours in the building, approximately 9:30 AM to 6PM Monday through Friday. When tapings do take place in the sanctuary, they would generally not begin any later than 7PM and would end no fater than 10PM. In addition, there will occasionally be gatherings that would have even less of an impact on the neighborhood. For example, the Whittier neighborhood meetings might be held at the "etown Hall, or a discussion or reading or workshop that was not musical in nature. These smaller gatherings could coincide with office hours or be similar to the live tapings, starting at 7PM and not running later than 10PM. V. Frequency of Use As mentioned earlier, we anticipate that the Boulder Theater will continue to be the primary location for our tapings of the radio show. However, smaller, more acoustic shows would be more appropriate in the proposed property. These shows are more intimate in scope and scale and yet could produce an excellent radio program. As mentioned in the originai application, when considering all possible uses - live tapings and occasional gatherings - we do not anticipate utilizing the sanctuary any more than it is currently being used - 12 times per month. VI. Business responsibilities as good neighbors We, as long time Boulder residents and Whittier residents both past and present, have a particular appreciation for ihe unique characteristics of this neighborhood. We know, first hand, that too many people, too many cars and too much noise can negatively impact the residential nature of the neighborhood. We believe that we can be good neighbors, utilizing the existing historical structure in a manner that is very consistent with its original purpose while manifesting our vision as a non-profit organization, creating a values-based gathering place. ~a~~ra~~ ~r~~~~ s,.~,~p~~ 3~ , wwwPt~w~~.~ 4 ` ie:v~ tomm°O: We are planning to be in residence, on-site and available for any questions or comments. We plan to attend Whittier neighborhood meetings when appropriate and would welcome any input from the neighbors in terms of how we manage this property. The critical point is that the building is there, the purpose of which is to gather people together around a set of shared values That is what we hope to do, as well, bearing in mind that the vast majority of the activity on site will be non-public in nature: office work, studio recording and editing We have a mailing list that informs people about all upcoming events. We would hope that the neighbors would join the mailing list in order to receive all information in regards to upcoming tapings. We would imagine that, since we do not anticipate sellmg any alcoholic beverages, that our trash pickup could be coordinated with the neighborhood, again minimizing the impact on the neighbors In short, we would love the opportunity to create the etown Hall in the heart of downtown Boulder. The existing building is in need of both improvement and better integration with the neighborhood. We believe that we can accomplish both ob~ectives. In fact, we feel that etown is uniquely suited to improve and occupy a building that seems uniquely suited to meet our unique needs. VII. Loading There will be a loading area on the east side of the building from which we could access the stage area directly, thereby minimizing the potenGal for additional noise for the neighbors to the west. In addition, we anticipate having all equipment installed permanently in the sanctuary, making the actual loading and unloading a relatively minor event. VIII: Deliveries and Trash Removal We would imagine that, since we do not anticipate selling any alcoholic beverages, that our trash pickup could be coordinated with the neighborhood, again minimizing the impact the neighbors. l~GERL~l~lTE{b9 #. ~J~,PpG~~!' www.etown.otg Or,r 27 20D6 9:55 Horzym flcoustics 3~3541~021 P.1 Attachment I Borzym Acoustics Consulting 8 Engineenng I~ X. BQlZ~9[1r PG INCE 303.541.0020 Fox 303.54 i.0021 acousUa~columbine. n et 1221 Columbine Avenue, 8oulder CD 80302 27 October 2006 Nick Forster, CEO/Host E-Town 207 Canyon Boulevard, Suite ~302 Boulder, CO 8~302 re: Acoustical Evaluation 1535 Spruce 5treet Building Boulder, Colorado Nick, On 26 October you and 1 visited ihe property to make initial visual evaiuations of acoustical issues, specifically potentiai transmission of musical sound to adjacent properties. You obviously know something about acoustics because your draft management plan correctly identifies the various methods that can be used to reduce such transmission. Noise Emission Control The most significant sound transmission path will be to the adjacent property to the west (1525 Spruce), which is a lightweight structure very close to the common property line. The 1535 Building has a favorable configuration for noise mitigation in this direction. The existing wafls are quite massive, the window area is relatively smali and there are no doors on this side of the building. We discussed the two most pramising methods of reducing sound transmission through this west walVwindow assembly. Such modifications are expected to reduce overall emanation of sound from this fa~ade by at least ten, to over twenty decibels. (For reference, each 10.decibel reduction causes sound to be perceived half as loud.} We also evaluated the existing ventilation system, and as you note this can be modified to reduce sound emanation to a significant degree if any is fovnd. ACENDA IT~{~i # ~ PpG~ ~ Qc"'. 27 2006 9:55 Horzym flcaustics 30354100Z1 p.2 Acoustical Evaluation 1535 bpruce Street Building 27 October 2006 Page 2 of 2 Noise Levels and Regulations The following comments are predicated upon the notion that the typical E-Town shows at the 1535 Spruce Street Suilding will besignificantly less acoustically energetic and less heavily amplified ihan shows typically held at the Boulder Theater. In my opinion, sound levels during recording events at the property will be found to comply with the Boulder Revised Code 5-9-3 (55 dBA maximum daytime, SO dBA maximum nighttime 11 PM - 7 AM). Since your proposed activities will not occur during nighttime hours, BRC 5-9-6 should not be an issue. !f noise emission is claimed to be disruptive 6y the tenants in [he adjacent property, BRC 5-9-5 wouid be the standard for compliance. You will be able to control the audibility of sound by adjusting the operating parameters of your audio playback systems (without compromising recording system operations). Only the loudest of such shows would I expect to be significantly audibie at the west property line (with building modifications complete}. Any such audible sound would likely be inaudible or nearly so within the residential uniLS of the adjacent property when windows are closed. For comparison, using the A-weighted sound measuring method prescribed in the municipal code, I would expect that sound from vehicles and animals to be louder at the west property line than music typicaily emanating from the 1535 building. For comparison, using the A-~n-eighted sound measuring method, I would exped that sound from an ordinary home stereo system in the 1525 apartmenis to be louder at the west property line than music emanating from the 1535 building. We trust that you will find this report i nformative and useful. Please do not hesitate to call if you have questions regarding this information. Thank you. BOrzym ACOU5tiC5 303-541-0020 2221 Columbine Avenue, Boulder, CO 8~302 ~~~~nsa er~~~n ~~ ~AG~ 3~ 1im X. Borrym, PE, INCE Attachment J Section 9-2-I5, B.R.C., 1981 Use Review Criteria (findicates criteria have been satisfied). (1) Consistencv with ZoninQ and Non-Conformitv: The use is consistent with the purpose ofthe zoning district as set forth in Section 9-2-I, "Zoning Districts Established," B.R.C. 1981, except in the case of a non-conforming use; Section 9-5, B.R.C., 1981 defines the Residential High Two (RH-2) zoning district as "High density residential areas prinaarily used for a variety of types of attached residential units, including, without limitation, apartment bui[dings, and where complementary uses may be allowed."The Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP also established a High Density Residential (HR). As indicated by the definition of the zoning district and the underlying High Density Residential land use designation, the property is intended to be used for primarily residential purposes. On balance, staff has found the request to be inconsistent with the uses permitted in the RH-2 zoning district. As indicated above, Section 9-6-1(d), B.R.C., 1981 permits broadcast and recording facilities through the Use Review process in the RH-2 zoning district. Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981 defines broadcast and recording facilities as "a studio for tlie purpose of broadcasting radia or television, or a studin for recording of live performances': Per Section 9-16, B.R.C., 1981, an accessory use can be defined as "a use located on the same lot as the principal building, structm•e, or use to which it is related and that is subardinate to and customarily found wit/i the principal use of the land and is operated a~xd ~naintained for the be~2efit or co~ivenience of the occupants, emp[oyees, a~¢d customers of or visitors to the premises wit/a tke pri~zcipal use." As mentioned above, at Yhe pre application phase, staff found that a small studio audience may be considered an aceessory use that is subordinate to and customarily found with the principal use of a broadcast and recording facility. The applicanYs Use Review application, however, requests occasional, small scale live performances with a maximum occupancy of 200 people, up to 12 times a month. Staff finds the proposal to be of a scale and frequency more closely resembling that of a principal theater use, rather than an accessory use to a broadcast recording facility. Per Section 9-6- 1(d), B.R.C., 1981, theater uses are not permitted in the RH-2 zoning district. (2) Rationale: The use either: (A) Provides direct service or convenience to or reduces adverse impacts to the surrounding uses or neighborhood; (B) Provides a compatible transition between higher intensity and lower intensity uses; _~_ (C) Is necessary to foster a specific city policy, as expressed in the Boulder AQenda Item ~age# ~ Valley Comprehensive Plan, including, without limitation, historic preservation, moderate income housing, residential and non-residential mixed uses in appropriate locations, and group living arrangements for special populations; or Staff finds the proposed use to be consistent with the following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: 2.33 Preservation of Historical and Cultural Resources. Buildings, districts, and sites of historical, architectural, archaeological, or cultural significance will be identified and protected. The city and county will encourage preservation of such resources through incentives programs, designation of landmark buildings and districts, design review, public improvements and other tools. Protection will be required by the city when a proposed action by a public entity involves a potential important resource. Protection of important resources will also be sought by the city when a proposal by the private sector involves discretionary development review (e.g., site review, use review, rezoning). 318 Performing and Visual Arts. The city, recognizing the need to enhance the personal development of the public and to build a sense of community by providing for cultural needs, will encourage the provision of facilities for the performing and visual arts and the provision of art in public buildings and spaces. 5.03 Support for Local Business. The city and county recognize the significant contribution of existing businesses in the local economy. The city will support the retention, expansion and entrepreneurial activities of existing local businesses and maintain a positive climate for retail and business. Staff has found the proposed use to be inconsistent with the following Boulder Valley Comprehensive Goals regarding residential neighborhood compatibility: 2.13 Support for Residential Neighborhoods. In its community design planning the city will support and strengthen its residential ncighborhoods. The city will seek appropriate building scale and compatible character of new development or redevelopment, desired public facilities and mixed commercial uses, and sensitively designed and sized rights-of-way. 214 Preservation of Community Character. The city will encourage the preservation of community character as reflected in the development pattern and relative affordability of Agenda Item #~age# 3~ the existing housing stock in Boulder's varied neighborhoods. (See Policy 239 Sensitive Infill and Redevelopment and Policy 2.42 Enhanced Design for the Built Environment.) 2.17 Protection of Residential Neighborhoods Adjacent to Non- residential Zones. The city and county will take appropriate actions to ensure that the character and livability of established residential neighborhoods will not be undermined by spill-over impacts from adjacent regional or community business zones or by incremental expansion of business activities into residential areas. The city and county will protect residential neighborhoods from intrusion of non- residential uses by protecting edges and regulaYing the impacts of these uses on neighborhoods. 2.18 Mixture of Complementary Land Uses. The city and county will strongly encouragc, consistent with other land use policies, a variety of land uses in new developments. In existing neighborhoods, a mixture of land use types, housing sizes and lot sizes may be possible if properly mitigated and respectful of neighborhood character. Wherever land uses are mixed, careful design will be required in order to ensure compatibility, accessibility and appropriate transitions between land uses that vary in intensity and scale. 2.19 Compatibility of Adjacent Land Uses. In order to avoid or minimize noise and visual conflicts between adjacent land uses that vary widely in use intensity or other characteristics, the city will use tools sucl~ as interface zones, transitional areas, site and building design and cascading gradients of density in the design of subareas and zoning districts. With redevelopment, the transitional area should be within the zone of more intense use. While the applicant's proposal is consistent with several goals of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan, the impacts which will result appear to be unbalanced. _~(D) Is an existing legal non-conforming use or a change thereto that is permitted under subsection (~ of this section; The property is considered an existing non-conforming due to parking and a change of use from a by-right religious assembly to a broadcast and recording use per subsection (fl below. 3) Compatibility: The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed development or change to an existing development are such that the use will be AQenda Item #~ase# /lJ reasonably compatible with and have minimal negative impact on the use of nearby properties or for residential uses in industrial zoning districts, the proposed development reasonably mitigates the potential negative impacts from nearby properties; Overall, staff is supportive of the proposed broadcast recording and accessory office uses; however, staff has found that the frequency of live tapings, and the amount of audience members proposed are not cumulatively subordinate to the principal use of broadcast and recording, especially for an area that is residentially zoned. Concern also exists regarding neighborhood impacts resulting from parking, loading and unloading, crowd dispersal and potential acoustical impacts resulting from the live performances and the hours of operation. Although the applicant has proposed a parking arrangement utilizing public parking garages to accommodate audience members, it is likely that audience members will attempt to park as close as possible to the site. As noted in stafPs attached memorandum of recommendations, on-street parking is unrestricted after 8:00 P.M. in the Whittier NPP and after 6:00 P.M. in the on-street parking areas outside of the Whittier NPP adjacent to the site. Therefore, the potential for on-street parking in the area to be severely impacted by etown patrons is likely, especially in the evening hours during performances. Additional on-street parking will result in additional disbursement of people throughout the neighborhood as well as additional traffic and vehicular trips in the evening hours. As indicated above, a majar policy objective of the BVCP is to protect the character of neighborhoods and to insure compatibility of adjacent land uses. Staff has found the proposed use to be inconsistent with the aforementioned BVCP policies regarding neighborhood character and compatibility of adjacent land uses. Staff has found that the proposal exceeds the intent and intensity contemplated for broadcast and recording facilities as defined by Section 9-16 of the Land Use Code and results in incompatible adjacent land uses. ~~ (4) Infrastructure: As compared to development permitted under Section 9-31-1, "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-conforrning 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; Suitable infrastructure exists to serve the proposed uses. (5) Character of Area: The use will not change the predominant character of the surrounding area; and The character of the area is predominantly defined by mixed density residential and office space. While the actual building is not proposed to change, the introduction of what appears to be more of a principal theatre use will have impacts on the surrounding properties that will contribute to a change in the character of the area. A~enda Item #~PaEe# ~ N/A (6) Conversion of Dwelling 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-residential uses that are allowed pursuant to a use review, or through the 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 educational use. Not applicable. The proposal does not involve the conversion of dwelling units to non residential uses. (~ ADDITIONAL CRITERIA FOR MODIFICATIONS TO NON-CONFORMING USES No application for a change to a non-conforming use shall be granted unless all oFthe following criteria are met in addition to the criteria set forth above: (1) Reasonable Measures Required: The applicant has undertaken all reasonable measures to reduce or alleviate the effects of the non-confonnity upon the surrow~ding area, including, without limitation, objectionable conditions, glare, adverse visual impacts, noise pollution, air emissions, vehicular traffic, storage of equipment, materials, and refuse, and on-street parking, so that the change will not adversely affect the surrounding area. While the applicant has taken measures to arrange and manage off-site parking to help alleviate impacts on the neighborhood and consulted an acoustical engineer to determine methods that may help reduce noise impacts on adjacent property owners, the impacts resulting from the proposed use appear significant and unbalanced. (2) Reduction in Non-Conforrnit~Improvement of Appearance: The proposed change or expansion will either reduce the degree of non-conformity of the use or itnprove the physical appearance of the structure or the site without increasing the degree of nonconformity. The property is considered non-conforming due to parking. Parking requirements per Section 9-9-6(b)(1)(4), B.R.C., 1981 for religious assemblies in the RH-2 zoning district require 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area. Similarly, parking requirements for a broadcast and recording facility also require 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area. Therefore, no increased parking results from the broadcast and recording facility as a total of 59 parking spaces woutd be required to serve both uses. Although principal theater uses are not permitted in the RH-2 zoning district, the audience size of the live performance component of the application indicates the property will function more as a principal theater use in addition to the principal broadcast and recording uses, thereby requiring additional parking. Per Section 9-9-6(b)(1)(4), theaters are required to provide the greater of one parking space per three seats or 1 parking space per 300 square feet of floor area. A~enda Item #~Page# 7v While a religious assembly use and the proposed broadcast recording use have some similar operational characteristics, the proposed broadcast and recording use will not reduce the amount of non-conformity on the property, or reduce the amount of neighborhood impacts. Parking impacts remain a significant concern for the site, and the degree of intensity of use on the site will increase as daily office operations will be added on top of the 12 proposed tapings a month, as well as impacts related to loading and unloading of equipments for performances. Per the applicanNs written statement, the exterior of the building will be relatively unaltered or improved. (3) Compliance with this TitleBxceptions: The proposed change in use complies with all of the requirements of this title: N/A (A) Except for a change of a non-conforming use to another non-conforming use; and N/A (B) Unless a variance to the setback requirements has been granted pursuant to Section 9-2-3, "Variances and Interpretations," B.RC. 1981, or the setback has been varied through the application of the requirements of Section 9-2-13, "Site Review," B.R.C. 1981. ~L (4) Cannot Reasonablv Be Made Conforming: The existing building or lot cannot reasonably be utilized or made to conform to the requirements of Chapters 9-6, "Use Standards," 9-7, "Form and Bulk Standards," 9-8, "Intensity Standards," or 9-9, "Development Standards," B.R.C. 1981. Due to the lack of off-street parking and the lack of available property to create additional off-street parking, the property cannot be made conforming. N/A (5) No lncrease in Floor Area over Ten Percent: The change or expansion will not result in a cumulative increase in floor area of more than ten percent of the existing floor area. The proposed Use Review application does not propose any increase in existing building floor area, therefore the subject critcria is not applicable. N/A (6) Approving Authoritv Mav Grant Zoning Variances: The approving authority may grant the variances permitted by Subsection 9-2-3(d), B.R.C. 1981, upon finding that the criteria set forth in Subsection 9-2-3(h), B.R.C. 1981, have been met. The proposed Use Review application does not propose any variances to the existing building, therefore the subject criteria is not applicable. AEenda Item # ~`~'aee# ~~ Charles Ferro - E-Town Nonconforming Use Re~ Attachment K _ Page ~ From: "Chris Mihalik" To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Sun, Aug 27, 2006 9:44 PM Subject: E-Town Nonconforming Use Review (LUR2006-00067) Hi, My name is Chris Mihalik and I live at 1529 Spruce Street. This is right next to the property at 1535 Spruce Street that has applied for a"Use Review". I would like to receive notice of the of the decision or any Planning Board hearings regarding the "Use Review". I am strongly opposed to any use of the property that allows for live performances. The building at 1535 Spruce Street is, literally, 10 feet away irom several bedrooms in my building. There are several oiher bedrooms that are not quite 10 feet away, but probably no more than 30-50 feet away. I also think that there will be parking problems associated with any live performances. Thanks. Chris Mihalik AGFNt~A I7EPtw #~ ~q~~ ° ~~ Charles Ferro - 16th & Spruce eTown conversion Page 1 From: "Eric Weissmann' To: <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 9:30 PM Subject: 16th & Spruce eTown conversion Hello. i reside at 1529 Spruce Street, and I recently received a letter describing a conversion of the building for eTown's use. I have a number of concerns. First, the building already causes significant problems for residents. There is a drug/alcohol urine testing facility in the building. It attracts a high volume of traffic, many of whom park illegally, either double-parking on the street or parking illegally in our parking facility. The individuals often hang out in the space between the church building and our building, smoking, yelling, and intimidating some of our older residents. I would hope that any permitted change in the use of the building would be coupled with a new restriction that this type of use (or, ideally, any use with this retail character) not ever be allowed. The entrance on the West side of the church building causes numerous problems. Our building is separated from the church building only by a small sidewalk. This sidewalk is shielded from street view, and therefore attracts homeless individuals, drug dealers, etc. A number of our residences, including mine, have bedrooms that face this sidewalk, and the activity connected with the church building is very disruptive. Further, this sidewalk is the primary access to my condominwm, and I am concerned about the safety threat posed by the existing use patterns to my wife and daughter. If that door were used only for emergency egress purposes, perhaps the space between the buildings could be secured in some manner. While I do not object to ordinary daily office use of the church building, I am concerned about public performance and "community" uses. I would hope that the city would consider the residential character of surrounding buildings in imposing appropriate conditions on any use change. There is very little parking associated with the building. Events in the building already inspire a great deal of illegal parking and traffic. I would also be very concerned about noise levels, alcohol use, and hours of operation of these public gatherings. While I have heard an argument that the uses may be less disruptive than existing church meetings, traditionally church uses are granted more leeway than other uses in residential settings. It would certainly be very reasonable for the city to put substantial restrictions on commercial or non-church uses. 1 have an infant daughter who goes to bed at 7pm - loud concerts 20 feet from her bedroom window would be very disruptive, :~(s~NC7A 9T~S~9 N ~,i~AGE _~~ Charles Ferro - 16th & Spruce eTown conversion Page 2 and I think this would be a very inappropriate use. I understand that eTown has stated they will not be seeking a liquor license, but can a restriction on land use be placed that would prevent thfs building from becoming a smaller version of the Boulder Theater? No one wants to live next door to that. Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate being kept advised of this status of this application. Eric Weissmann, Managing Director Kachi Partners tel +1 303 962 4904 Assistant: Lisa Molina, 303 962 4907, "If you want to achieve excellence, you can get there today. As of this second, quit doing less-than-excellent work." --T.J. Watson r:C:Y=t'iE~.':~ 4~EVV5 ;- ~.5-'laC.zh-..~7 Charles Ferro - COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 1~ From: "Jennifer Weissmann" To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Fri, Sep 1, 2006 9:48 PM Subject: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION September 1, 2006 RE: Review: #Iur2006-00067 Zoning: HZ-E Applicant: Nick Forster Address: 1535 Spruce Street Dear Mr. Ferro, We understand the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services has received a written request to convert the existing church into a variety of uses. I am writing as a board member on behalf of the Homeowners Association of 1529 Spruce Street. Our building is right next door to the existing church and anti-building. There is no private parking and street parking is scarce. We are unclear on what the suggested future use includes - can you clarify the following: E-town offices o What for example?? We are unclear on what this means. * Editing facilities with portions of space for live performances and recording o Will it be loud? Will people be coming and going? If so, how many people and how often? Community space (unclear ?) o Will you not allow use of urine testing by the Boulder Alcohol Center? Currently this is very disruptive to the homeowners. Their clientele walks through the homeowners space and double parks on Spruce Street while they run in for their pee test. :\C:Y`I\d.'S(:~'_~~"~ivi: ~vs'Flli~'._~~ Charles Ferro - COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 2. Please feel free to email or call me with any questions. I look forward to your follow-up email. Sincerely, Jennifer Mages Weissmann Cell #917-837-4278 Board Member Unit #10 of 1529 Spruce Street Jennifer M. Weissmann ~',':F'n'9iJ4 dT~ii~r;. ""i.YfiG~ ~ / `~ . ' Charles Ferro - REVISED COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 1 From: "Jennifer Weissmann" To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Mon, Sep 4, 2006 824 AM Subject: REVISED COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Subject: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION September 1, 2006 RE: Review: #Iur2006-00067 Zoning: HZ-E Applicant Nick Forster Address.1535 Spruce Street Dear Mr. Ferro, We understand the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services has received a written request to convert the existing church into a variety of uses. I am writing as a board member on behalf of the Homeowners Association of 1529 Spruce Street. Our building is right next door to the existing church and anti-building. Our comments include: PJ Editing facilities with poRions of space for live performances and recording ' We strongly oppose this use as condo owners have their bedrooms located less than 15' from the building. The noise and parking will be a disruption to homeowners. 0 Community space (unclear ?) ' W ill you not allow use of urine testing by the Boulder Alcohol Center? Currently this is very disruptive to the homeowners. Their clientele walks through the homeowner's space and double parks on Spruce Street while they run in for their pee test. We strongly oppose this use the clientele is loud and unruly. They use the path next to bedrooms. We've had at least 15 complaints in the last 6 months. ;4C:EC~C94N 9~'~E~N;;,`_"`'-.'..u~~tfiE .~/ i Charles Ferro - REVISED COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 2 There is no private parking and street parking is scarce. Also, the noise factor is a huge problem. We would like to be advised of future decisions. Thank you! Sincerely, Jennifer Mages Weissmann Cell #917-837-4278 Board Member Unit #10 of 1529 Spruce Street Jennifer M. Weissmann ,:.riF,ail: ~G., @`Gfel„„>,~.r~,~Ca~.I ~ Charles Ferro - RE: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 1; From: "Jennifer Weissmann" To: "'Charles Ferro"' <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 9:40 AM Subject: RE: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Many thanks for answering my questions and sending the attachment. I will share it with all the owners. When can we expect a decision from the City on this application? And, will I be notified as to the outcome? Thanks againf Jennifer M. Weissmann -----Original Message----- From: Charles Ferro [mailto:Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov] Sent: Tuesday, September O5, 2006 930 AM To: Jennifer Weissmann Subject: Re: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Dear Jennifer: Please find my responses below in bold. E-town offices What for example?? We are unclear on what this means. E-town proposes to operate their administrative offices at the subject location. Per the application submitted by E-town, their staff (9 full-time and 2 to 5 volunteers) is spilt between two disciplines, production (bookings, research, script writing, editing, distribution, show logistics, remixing) and administration (book keeping, „<;FEv"'i',k t~"~;;% a ~o-=<<C~h_._~ Charles Ferro - RE: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 2 developments, fund-raising, management, office reception). ' Editing facilities with portions of space for live performances and recording o Will it be loud? Will people be coming and going? If so, how many people and how often? Audio editing is not considered a loud activity (usually done through headphones in an editing suit or booth). E-town proposes occasiona{ live performances and lectures on weekend evenings from 7pm -9:30 pm. Currently the church seats 250 people, however, in the event the sub~ect application was supported by staff, it is possible that the capacity could be further restricted through conditions of approval. ' Community space (unclear ?) o W ill you not allow use of urine testing by the Boulder Alcohol Cente~? Currently this is very disruptive to the homeowners. Their clientele walks through the homeowners space and double parks on Spruce Street while they run in for their pee test. From what I understand, Urine testing would not be included as a part of the proposed "community uses." From what I understand, neighborhood uses would be more geared toward neighborhood type uses such as the Whittier Neighborhood Association meetings, etc. For your convenience, I've attached a copy of the applicanYs narrative statement describing the proposed uses for the property. Please feel free to contact me with any additional questions. Please note that your input wil~ be included as part of the file and will be communicated to the applicant. Sincerely, Charles Ferro, AICP a~zi°sj.9r i,'a ~`i"~a'+.N>; ~k'~~C~~.~ Charles Ferro - RE: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page_3 Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax ferroc@ bou I dercolorado. gov www. bo u Id ercol orad o.gov »> "Jennifer Weissmann" September 1, 2006 RE: Review: #Iu2006-00067 Zoning: HZ-E Applicant: Nick Forster Address:1535 Spruce Street Dear Mr. Ferro, We understand the City of Boulder Planning and Development Services has received a written request to convert the existing church into a variety of uses. I am writing as a board member on behalf of the Homeowners Association of 1529 Spruce Street. Our building is right next door to the existing church and anti-building. There is no private parking and street parking is scarce. We are unclear on what the suggested future use includes - can you clarify the following: E-town offices o What for example?? We are unclear on what this means. ` Editing facilities with portions of space for live performances and recording o Will it be loud? Will people be coming and going? If so, how many people and how often? Community space (unclear ?) r;.;r~h~; 1/d .I`If'I`~i~i!P i:. `-'_`„r'~~~a~._ ~/ Charles Ferro - RE: COMMENTS ON 1535 SPRUCE STREET CONVERSION Page 4, o Will you not allow use of urine testing by the Boulder Alcohol Center? Currently this is very disruptive to the homeowners. Their clientele walks through the homeowners space and double parks on Spruce Street while they run in for their pee test. Please feel free to email or call me with any questions. I look forward to your follow-up email. Sincerely, Jennifer Mages Weissmann Cell #917-837-4278 Board Member Unit #10 of 1529 Spruce Street Jennifer M. Weissmann ,.:h~,:;:, ~/>P`tib-~~~+;s,'''Y,~laf~C~.~ ; Charles Ferro - 16th & Spruce Page 1 From: "Jennifer Weissmann" To: <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 5:26 PM Subject: 16th & Spruce From: Eric Weissmann Sent: Tuesday, September O5, 2006 4:49 PM Subject: 16th & Spruce Hello. I reside at 1529 Spruce Street, and I recently received a letter describing a conversion of the building for eTown's use. I have a number of concerns. First, the building already causes significant problems for residents. There is a drug/alcohol urine testing faality in the building. It attracts a high volume of traffic, many of whom park illegally, either double-parking on the street or parking illegally in our parking facility. The individuals often hang out in the space between the church building and our building, smoking, yelling, and intimidating some of our older residents. I would hope that any permitted change in the use of the building would be coupled with a new restriction that this type of use (or, ideally, any use with this retail character) not ever be allowed. The entrance on the West side of the church building causes numerous problems. Our building is separated from the church building only by a small sidewalk. This sidewalk is shielded from street view, and therefore attracts homeless individuals, drug dealers, etc. A number of our residences, including mine, have bedrooms that face this sidewalk, and the activity connected with the church building is very disruptive. Further, this sidewalk is the primary access to my condominium, and I am concerned about the safety threat posed by the existing use patterns to my wife and daughter. If that door were used only for emergency egress purposes, perhaps the space between the buildings could be secured in some manner. W hile I do not object to ordinary daily office use of the church building, I am concerned about public performance and "community" uses. I would hope that the city would consider the residential character of surrounding buildings in imposing appropriate conditions on any use change. There is very little parking associated with the building. Events in the building already inspire a great deal of illegal parking and traffic. I would also be very concerned about noise levels, alcohol use, and hours of operation of these public gatherings. W hile I have heard an argument that the uses may be less disruptive than existing church meetings, traditionally church uses ~L:~~~~~~ ;~, ~~~~~~~<<f~,r ~~_ ,r~~~;~,;_, 53 Charles Ferro - 16th & Spruce Page 2 are granted more leeway than other uses in residential settings. It would certainly be very reasonable for the city to put substantial restrictions on commercial or non-church uses. I have an infant daughter who goes to bed at 7pm - loud concerts 20 feet from her bedroom window would be very disruptive, and I think this would be a very inappropriate use. I understand that eTown has stated they will not be seeking a liquor license, but can a restriction on land use be placed that would prevent this building from becoming a smaller version of the Boulder Theater? No one wants to live next door to that. Thank you for your consideration. I would appreciate being kept advised of this status of this application. Eric Weissmann, Managing Director Kachi Partners tel +1 303 962 4904 Assistant: Lisa Molina, 303 962 4907, "If you want to achieve excellence, you can get there today. As of this second, quit doing less-than-excellent work." --T.J. Watson l~. ~, _ i~i _ ):' 19`~I`~=„~ ; t ~ ,~fa~~; ~ .`-~/ Charles Ferro - e town 1535 Spruce Page 1 From: "Jennifer Weissmann' To: "'Charles Ferro"' <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Thu, Jan 18, 2007 223 PM Subject: e town 1535 Spruce January 18, 2007 Hello Charles, Any updates on the Etown proposal for 1535 Spruce? Thank you. Jennifer M. Weissmann -----Original Message----- From: Charles Ferro [mailto:Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov] Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 9:47 AM To: cmihalik@att.net; Molly Winter; griffey323@earthlink.net; whittierneighborhood@hotmail.com; tpeglar@juno.com; trutkowski@juno.com; eric@kachipartners.com; peter.kloepfer@nexcoregroup.com; aduffey@penton.com; jennifer@weissmann.net; robert@wobblewedge.com Subject: Neighborhood Meeting Notice -(e town 1535 Spruce) Please note that a hard copy of the neighborhood meeting notice has been mailed to property owners within 600 feet of the subject property. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 1s~.~,r'~1, i;'\ il`i h_ ~'a is, ~~'~~~.9 ~:`!`~ Charles Ferro - Re: 1535 Spruce (E-Town Use Review Resubmittal) Application #LUR2006-00067 Page 1 From: Jim Griffey To: C:harles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.qov>. Date: Thu, May 17, 2007 10:02 AM Subject: Re: 1535 Spruce (E-Town Use Review Resubmittal) Application #LUR2006-00067 Charles, Heather and I attended the Whittier Neighborhood Meeting this week to discuss the application for E-Town~s relocation to the building at 16th and Spruce. We are the owners of The Bradley Boulder Inn at 2040 16th Street. We are located diagonally across from the subject property, at the southeast corner of Spruce and 16th. As you know, we have always been against the proposed CElive music0 use as it has the potential to be disruptive to our property and our hotel guests. Even if we were unable to hear the noise from the performance, our hotel guests would certainly hear guests leaving the performance. In the attached revised plan, we noted inconsistencies as to number of performances that would take place each month, and the time of day of the performances (in one instance, the document states performances would run from 7 pm - 9 pm, and a few pages later, it is stated that performances would run from 7 pm - 10 pm). We were also confused about Mr. ForesterOs assessment of the initial public meeting (detailed in VIII Neighborhood Perspective), where he writes,'Clearly, there will be concerns as to impact (parking, noise, traffic), but those concerns were not, surprisingly, particularly grave concerns at the meeting. There was a general level of interest in and support for this project.~ We attended that meeting. The residents that live approximately 10 feet to the west of the subject property could not have been any more CEgrave0 in their concerns. We, as owners of The Bradley Boulder Inn, were also in strong opposition to the proposed use. So I would say that there was in no way, CEgeneral interest in and support for0 the proposed use, using any sensible definition of the terms. W ith all that said, and in the spirit of cooperation, under what circumstances could we support the use by E-Town? The Whittier Neighborhood letter of support requires various sound, traffic and parking mitigation plans, and we would ~~S ,' ~~I ~ \ ~~ i~. z ~'~ :_. ~~. ~ia ~~~ _ ~J~~ `Charles Ferro - Re: 1535 Spruce (E-Town Use Review Resubmittal) Application #LUR2006-00067 Page 2• certainly support those mandatory conditions of approval. In addition, we would propose an earlier end time for all performances/gatherings. No later than 7 pm. If the applicant would agree to end performances no later than 7pm, this should reduce the impact on the residential nature of the neighborhood. Additionally, E-Town should be required to provide staff to eliminate loitering after the performances/gatherings, which it does speak to in the management plan. i hope these comments/suggestions are helpful and that Mr. Forester will be open to cooperating with the residents/owners that are most adversely effected by his application. Sincerely, Heather Collaton and Jim Griffey The Bradley Boulder Inn 2040 16th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 W ww.therbradleyboulder.com On 5/10/07 624 PM, "Charles Ferro" <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> wrote > Dear Whittier Neighbor: > Please note that a revised application has been submitted for the proposed Use > Review to permit office use, live recording, editing, community meetings, and > live performances in the existing building located at 1535 Spruce Street. > A copy of the revised application is on file at the Planning and Development > Services Center located at 1739 Broadway, Suite 300 for review during reg~lar > business hours. > > Please find the attached copies of the applicanYs written statement and > proposed management plan. A Planning Board hearing has been tentatively > scheduled for July 5, 2007 at 6:00 PM in the City Council Chambers located at > 1777 Broadway. > > Please provide any written comments directly to me by May 23rd, 2007. > > Please feel free to contact me with any questions. > > Sincerely, > > Charles Ferro, AICP > Planner II > City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department > 303.441.4012 - Direct > 303.441.3241 - Fax > ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov > www.bouldercolorado.gov <http://www.bouldercolorado.gov> \i,~~,,'~I )`V'l,l~~~,l;s~,lr'F~x=iC: ~~ Charles Ferro - Re: etown request Page 1 From: "Jim Griffey" To: "Charles Ferro" <Ferroc@bouldercoiorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 3:09 PM Subject: Re: etown request Thanks, Charles, for forwarding the etown application, but can you also forward me your departmenYs additional requests/concerns, so as to not double our efforts? Thanks, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Ferro To. Jim Griffey Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:21 PM Subject: Re: etown request Dear Jim: Please find the attached narrative statement submitted by the applicant Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax f e r r o c@ b o u I d e r co I o ra d o. g o v www. bouldercolorado.gov »> "Jim Griffey" Thanks Charles, for your time on the phone today. If you could forward us all things pertinent with regard to the non-conforming use request for 1535 Spruce Street, that would help us in crafting our letter to you. Sincerely, Jim Griffey The Bradley Inn CC: "'Heather Collaton'" < ~,i; ~~a~ 7 \T;'et~,i::,~r.`\C~i'a= ~ Charles Ferro - Re: etown request Page 1 From: "Jim Griffey" To: "Charles Ferro" <Ferroc(wbouidercoioraao.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 4:06 PM Subject: Re: etown request Hi Charles, Do we have a deadline for our'letter' to you, voicing opposition? If so, can our telephone conversation suffice for now? We would certainly like to wait until we have your comments in hand and have an opportunity to review them before we move to a written, for the record, correspondence. Thanks for assisting us in the delicate navigation of this matter. We certainly appreciate your guidance. Sincerely, Jim Griffey The Bradley Inn ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Ferro To: Jim Griffey Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 3:40 PM Subject: Re: etown request Jim: I'd be happy to forward you staff's comments once their ready on Friday. Thanks, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax f e rroc @ b o u I d e rco I o ra d o. g o v www. bouldercolorado.gov »> "Jim Griffey" Thanks, Charles, for forwarding the etown application, but can you also forward me your departmenYs additional requests/concerns, so as to not double our efforts? Thanks, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Ferro To: Jim Griffey Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:21 PM Subject: Re: etown request Dear Jim: Please find the attached narrative statement submitted by the applicant. ~\k1~~+97!~ 4~'~+~fl f,3 ~~1~~ ~ Charles Ferro - Re: etown request Page 2 Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax ferroc@ bo u I derco lo rad o. gov www. bouldercolorado.gov »> "Jim Griffey" Thanks Charles, for your time on the phone today. If you could forvvard us all things pertinent with regard to the non-conforming use request for 1535 Spruce Street, that would help us in crafting our letter to you. Sincerely, Jim Griffey The Bradley Inn CC: "'Heather Collaton"' <heather@thebradleyboulder.com> ~ F~_ ~ 1C:'~i~'~~'. ~Id OY[~;1!! @~.- - =~~1~'l\~« ~ _ Charles Ferro - Re: etown request Page 1 From: "Jim Griffey" ~ To: "Charles Ferro" <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 4:16 PM Subject: Re: etown request Thanks, Charles. We will wait then for your e-mail on Friday and craft the letter after we have the opportunity to review your concerns/requests. Sincerely, Jim Griffey The Bradleylnn ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Ferro To: Jim Griffey Sent: Tuesday, September O5, 2006 4:14 PM Sub~ect: Re: etown request Jim: The phone call will suffice for now. Thanks, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax ferroc@ bou I d erco I orado. gov www. bouldercolorado.gov »> "Jim Griffey" Hi Charles, Do we have a deadline for our'letter' to you, voicing opposition? If so, can our telephone conversation suffice for now? We would certainly like to wait until we have your comments in hand and have an opportunity to review them before we move to a written, for the record, correspondence. Thanks for assisting us in the delicate navigation of this matter. We certainly appreciate your guidance. Sincerely, Jim Griffey The Bradley Inn ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Ferro To: Jim Griffey Sent: Tuesday, September O5, 2006 3:40 PM Sub~ect: Re: etown request ,1~q~:'~I''~ ),1 d"~i '~A:i , ~ ~ ~,~~ \~~:~ . ~ ~ Charles Ferro - Re: etown request Page 2 Jim: I'd be happy to forward you staff's comments once their ready on Friday. Thanks, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner II City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303.441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax ferroc@ bo u I dercol orad o. gov www. bouldercolorado.gov »> "Jim Griffey" Thanks, Charles, for forwarding the etown application, but can you also forward me your departmenYs additional requests/concerns, so as to not double our efforts? Thanks, Jim ----- Original Message ----- From: Charles Ferro To: Jim Griffey Sent: Tuesday, September 05, 2006 2:21 PM Subject: Re: etown request Dear Jim: Please find the attached narrative statement submitted by the applicant. Please feel free to contact me with any questions. Best, Charles Ferro, AICP Planner 11 Ciry of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department 303_441.4012 - Direct 303.441.3241 - Fax ferroc@ bo u I dercol orad o. gov www. b o u I d e rcol o ra d o. g o v »> "Jim Griffey' Thanks Charles, for your time on the phone today. If you could forward us all things pertinent with regard to the non-conforming use request for 1535 Spruce Street, that would help us in crafting our letter to you. Sincerely, Jim Griffey The Bradley ~nn CC: "'Heather Collaton"' ~~;';.~I~),Al~ti~,i;~~ ~~~d~ ~o~ Charles Ferro - etown Page 1 From: "Jim Griffey' ~ _ __ _ ......... _. To: "Charles Ferro" <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 12, 2006 8:03 AM Subject: etown Hi Charles: Thanks for sending us your staff response last Friday. From the attached emails from other concerned residents, it appears as you have conditioned your approval on the items that concern the'most impacted' residents and property owners. We sincerely appreciate your staffs sensitivity to those issues of concern with the proposed use. I will look fonvard to hearing how etown responds to your concerns/conditions. Please keep me informed as new information becomes available. Sincerely, Jim Griffey CC: "'Heather Collaton"' ~:~;;~I~;-,lr~~~,i ~ ~~~e1t',~~ ~ Charles Ferro - Dear Mr. Ferro Page 1- From: "Peter Kloepfer" To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 5:16 PM Subject: Dear Mr. Ferro Dear Mr. Ferro I am writing on behalf of Jean Baker my 75 year old mother who lives next door to 1535 Spruce street. We oppose the use of the church for concert performances. This is a residential neighborhood and it is hard to imagine why it is in the best interests of this neighborhood to have this type of evening use that will undoubtable create sound transmission outside of the building structure and disturb the people living close by. This use is entirely different than having church goers three times a week or office users. Not only are the hours of activity materially different but the amount of noise generated by a concert is not similar to a few church hymns. Not many services take place at night when people are trying to sleep and sound travels considerably more than against the daytime background activities of the neighborhood. I can't think of another place where a concert is allowed ten feet from somebody's bedroom window. Please do not approve this use change. Please advise me when the public hearing will take place so taht my mother and I can attend. Peter Kloepfer Senior Managing Director NexCore Group LP 720.264.0631 direct 303.244.0720 fax 303.250.2455 cell www. nexcoregrou p. com '~~`:,,~~~~~r,;-~.~.~~;~~~~~~cti~_ ~~ Charles Ferro - E-Town, Non Conforming Use at 1535 Spruce Street Page 1 From: Robert Bellows To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 10:48 PM Subject: E-Town, Non Conforming Use at 1535 Spruce Street Hello Charles, Please take the following comments into consideration as you make decisions regarding allowing E-Town to move into 1535 Spruce Street. My wife and i live directly across the street from this building at 1603 Spruce. Our bedroom windows face the single pane windows of this old church. We are both supportive, even excited to have E-Town in this site. We believe it would be good for E-Town and good for the community. However, living less than 100 feet from a concert hall and recording studio brings up a real concern about the noise levels generated. During the day, we are not too concerned about hearing a concert or radio show as long as it is at a reasonable level. However at night after 10:00 or so the sound level of a performance would clearly impact the quiet of our home. 'Sound & Noise Regulation` if E-Town moves into this location, we would appreciate assurance that the city has established clear and enforceable sound regulations that will protect our right to enjoy the quiet of our own home. As a non-conforming neighbor we would ask the city to require E-Town to do the following: Install sound proofed windows and other sound trapping features in the building to keep sound transmission to the neighborhood as low as possible Establish a good neighbor noise policy that includes simple techniques of sound mitigation such as keeping the doors and windows shut Provide residential neighbors a contact at E-Town who is responsible for neighborhood relations 'Loitering & Noise' It is also a concern that groups of music fans may loiter around the building as well as our home late into the night. It is already pretty noisy on this street as the bars close. Do you have any provisions that would help prevent this from becoming a noise problem? 'Parking* As you know parking is very tight in this area. We would like the city to require E-Town to consistently promote the City Parking Lot on the 1500 block of Pearl in all flyers and advertisements to reduce the parking load on residents. In conclusion, we do indeed support this move for E-Town. We do ask that you contact us and our other neighbors that face this church with your plan to protect our right to a quiet and peaceful homes Sincerely, ,~ ~-~ ,~~_:~~-~z~~" (!~~ ~ 1~=iP;'~'v. )o, ~ ~~':;~_ . Charles Ferro - E-Town, Non Conforming Use at 1535 Spruce Street Page 2 Robert Bellows & Terry Cohen 1603 Spruce .~~.,~~~,;"~ - „~._... ~ir~~.~i''„' -` Charles Ferro - Re: 1535 Spruce (eTown) - Staff Comments Page 1 From: "Tony Robledo" To: "Charles Ferro" <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Jun 5, 2007 3:17 PM Subject: Re: 1535 Spruce (eTown) - Staff Comments > Dear Neighbor, > Please find staffs comments to the applicant regarding the recent > resubmittal for the proposed Use Review application for 1535 Spruce > Street. > Charles Ferro, AICP > Planner II > City of Boulder - Planning and Development Services Department > Thank you for the info, please keep it coming. Should you be gathering opinion at this point.... as long as there is no liquor, I would be in favor of the project. Tony Robledo 1619 Spruce St. Boulder ti:'~:¢1i' ", . ~ ~~;~? ,~~ ~~~i~m~-_. ~O / Charles Ferro - 1535 Spruce St (proposed zoning change) Page 1 From: "tpeglar@juno.com" To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 10:32 PM Subject: '1535 Spruce St (proposed zoning change) Dear Charles, I am writing to you regarding the proposed zoning change to 1535 Spruce St, which is now a church and offices. I am concerned because there have been little details provided regarding how many concerts would be held at the address, when the shows would be held ( afternoon? evenings? late night?)and what the projected traffic impact would be on the block. At present, the 16th St block between Pine and Spruce is all residential. We have a young child and do not want to be liv~ng across froma venue that reverberates music late at night. I would like to know about the proposed plans and would prefer that the zoning remain residential, as traffic and parking are already an issue. Many neighborhoods in Boulder seem to be undergoing major urbanization,which can be totally appropriate in some areas. But I am not convinced changing the zoning is the way to go at 1535 Spruce St. I need more information to make an informed decision. Can you have an informational meeting or put more info on the web? Thank you for your time and consideration. 1 look forward to hearing from you! Sincerely, Tori Peglar 2124 16th St Boulder. CO. 80302 l~(:1=t~~1' i, ; ~!lf!~II+;~ ~.IrF`;~=is ~ ~ Charles Ferro - Re: 1535 Spruce St (proposed zoning change) Page 1_ From: "tpeglar@juno.com" To: <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Thu, Sep 7, 2006 10:02 AM Subject: Re: 1535 Spruce St (proposed zoning change) Thanks, Charles, for your quick reply. I am not sure where I read that 1535 Spruce was a zoning change. I apologize for the mischaracterization and look forward to hearing about a meeting to get more info! Sincerely, Tori Peglar ~,,a,ze~J' ~;~ a,°~',';.;~.~ , ~,~ (P7 r,~,_e_.. Charles Ferro - 1535 Spruce St Zoning Page 1. From: "trutkowski@juno.com" To: <ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: Tue, Sep 5, 2006 10:14 PM Subject: 1535 Spruce St Zoning F~el lo, I would like to voice my opposition to the proposed zoning change at 1535 Spruce St without further details and/or a public hearing. I live at 2124 16th st and I am worried about the traffic impact on my block. I have an infant daughter and the thought of tour buses and concert-related traffic on my block is a concern. I would like to request a public hearing where residents can ask questions and voice concerns. Without such a hearing I am firmly opposed.to the proposed zoning change at 1535 Spruce St (E-town). Sincerely, Tom Rutkowski 2124 16th St. 303-444-4041 ~_',,, , ,, ,_'~ I~~tiC~C~ ~D e-~ ~.~,~. ; ~ ~~-~.~.. ; _ ~ Charles Ferro - E-Town Page 1 From: Jim Griffey To: Charles Ferro <Ferroc@bouldercolorado.gov> Date: 6/7/2007 12:56:49 PM Subject: E-Town Charles, Heather and I met with Nick yesterday at the hotel. In the end, we all came away with food for thought. One question Nick asked us to consider was changing our request to end performances at 7:OOp. We understand that Nick would prefer to keep the same end time schedule as he does at the 700 seat capacity Boulder Theatre (9:OOp). But the fact that the proposed building is in a residential neighborhood calls for (in our opinion) an earlier end time. We could support end times for performances of no later than 830p and hope that your department and Nick can see that as a sensible compromise and a means to mitigate the potential problems associated with the E-Town use. All in all, Heather and I both feel that Nick and E-Town could be responsible neighbors. As to your Land Use Review Results and Comments dated June 5, 2007, we agree and support your findings and recommendations and hope that before the July 5th meeting, the additional requirement of performances ending no later than 8:30p could be included as a condition of approval. Please feel free to pass this correspondence along to any interested parties. Best regards, Heather Collaton and Jim Griffey The Bradley Inn 2040 16th Street Boulder, Colorado 80302 . ..!c~>u',,`r`.Cli'iz'.:~~;~.""_ih'/~C~;_ ~~ AflCNIfEtiURf (PHOTOGRAPH~ EAST ELEVATI~N SCALE: APPROX. 3/32" = 1'-0" 89 ~PHOT~GRAPH~ ~~ SOUTH ELEVATION 2 ~ SCALE: APPROX. 3/32" = 1'-0" 182D Polwm Srnt Boulda, Cobrado 80302 p6one 303.449.89p0 ~ w W ~ O ~ ~ W O ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ U j ~ o ~ ~ a~ ~ o ~ J T ~ °~ m ~ c~ ~ T ~Q~. ~. ~~.~ DRANN; f~q(@ ~FN CADD FllE DAIE REN510NS Q7/14/2006 ~OZ AACN1ECiURE etown CIT1' U5E REUIEW APPL SHEET 11T1E COLOA PHOTGRAPHS ~~~~~ ~~: A4.02