For a transcript of the meeting, please read below:
Meeting Transcription Disclaimer:
Note: The following is the output of transcribing from a video recording. Although the transcription, which was done with software, is largely accurate, in some cases it is incomplete or inaccurate due to inaudible passages or [software] transcription errors. It is posted as an aid to understanding the proceedings at the meeting, but should not be treated as an authoritative record.
To listen to the meeting alongside a transcript, please visit:
Email maybe she’s having login issues. Okay.
All right, let’s get this party started.
Okay, thank you.
Now one moment. Let me
let me just start the video sir one moment
I will give you a verbal acknowledgment. We’re good to go.
Sir, you’re welcome to begin.
Okay, thank you, Susan. Welcome to the July 15 2020. planning and zoning commission meeting. First item on our agenda is called to order or sorry, roll call.
Right. Thank you. Commissioner height as
Commissioner Koehler? Yeah. Commissioner polen here. Chairman chernykh. Here. Commissioner Koch here. Commissioner on Iran.
Okay, um, next is communications from planning manager Don Berkshire.
Don’t you need to on mute?
There we go. Hopefully you can hear me now. I do have one thing for the for the commission. Anyone wishing to speak during public invited to be heard items number four and seven or during any public Hearing. Specifically agenda item six will need to watch the livestream of the meeting for instructions about how to call in to provide public comment at the appropriate times. instructions will be given during the meeting and displayed on the screen when it is time to call in to provide comments. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. And each speaker will be asked to state their name and address for the record prior to proceeding with their comments. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. That’s all that I have German.
Thank you very much. Next on our agenda is public invited to be heard this is for items that are not on tonight’s agenda. So anything that is not on the agenda, if you want to speak to to the commission about that, just as Don Bridgette said, you’ll get five minutes. So you would call phone number 1669 Nine zeros 06833 and then enter the meeting id 830872951236699006833. Enter the meeting id 83087295123. This takes a while for us technologically to receive the calls and get the callers entered into the meeting. So we will take a five minute break again this is public invited to be heard about something that’s not on tonight’s agenda.
Alright chair I’m going to come back in and stop the sharing so that
it will eventually disappear from the livestream as well. So if you could rejoin with your video
I do not see anyone. I’m going to ask Jane if she sees anyone she’s telling me. There is no one in person at this time. Okay.
Alrighty, so we have nobody for the public invited to be heard. I’ll close that on. Next on our agenda is approval of our June 24 2020. regular meeting minutes. there any discussion amongst the commission? about those minutes?
Are there a motion to approve the minutes?
I can’t let’s see. I need to get into Oh, Commissioner Paul. Sorry. I was in. I wasn’t in gallery view. I couldn’t see you.
I move that we approve the June 24 2020. regular meeting minutes. Do we have a second on that motion?
Commissioner height. I will second that motion. Okay, we have a second motion to approve our minutes. Those in favor say aye. Raise your hand Aye. Aye. Aye. Those opposed say nay. Any abstentions for anybody who was not present. Okay. So Jane we have for approval, zero now and two abstentions to the absence. Alrighty, so the minutes are approved. The following is a public hearing item. And it’s item number six on our agenda. Left hand Brewing Company beer garden expansion PCR 2024, with principal planner Brian Schumacher. Brian, the floor is yours.
Thank you, Chairman fernack. And commissioners, Brian Schumacher with planning development services. We’re here this evening to present and discuss the left hand Brewing Company regarding expansion. Can you hear me and see me Okay, just wanted to check in. All right. Thank you. So Susan, if you Have the slide deck available. Could you start that, please? All right, thank you. And I’ll let you know when to switch to the next slide. So in the interest of time this evening, since are likely a number of questions from the commission and participation from the public, my presentation will be relatively brief. I know that for the commission to flip through the packet of materials, obviously, there’s a lot of detailed information that are included in the communication and all the attachments that are posted on the city web page for the plan zoning commission. So if any members of the public are interested in seeing additional information regarding the proposal, they can look at the information posted on the web page. In addition to my presentation, the applicant also present more details regarding the proposal after my remarks. And so with that, let’s go ahead and get started. Next slide please, Susan
So first of all, I want to introduce staff at the meeting this evening in addition to myself. So we have several staff members from public works engineering, transportation, engineering, natural resources and fire. So Cameron and Chris can help to address questions related to utilities, trainings and streets. Josh has been working on the resilience same brand project. So if you have questions regarding the flood mitigation, work, resilience, same drain project, Josh can help respond to questions regarding that. Caroline is available to respond to any questions you might have regarding traffic. Dan Wolford is here to respond to questions you may have regarding while potential wildlife impacts associated with this project. And then Michelle and Amy are here from fire. If you have any questions about emergency response or hazardous materials
So this slide provides a brief description of the property location. So we’ve got two properties here call 45 and toll 65 Boston Avenue. Tel 65 Boston Avenue is the existing brewery facility. 1245 is the proposed beergarden expansion location, both the properties and the surrounding area, except to the south of St. Bryan creek or zone mixed use employment. This property is adjacent to St. vrain Creek and the Greenway. And as I mentioned before in our plan, flood mitigation work with a result same brain project. And also note that there is a residential area south of st brain or some other residential neighborhoods that are approximately a quarter mile to the north. Next slide, please. So this is just a high level overview of the proposal. So the applicant, Mary Taylor will provide a much more detailed discussion Have a proposal regarding as part of their presentation. So included in the packet. This is kind of an overall illustrative plan of what’s being proposed with the spirit garden expansion. This is a conditional use site plan for the proposed beer garden expansion of the existing left hand brewery. So this includes lawn area with enhanced landscaping, there’s an outdoor bar structure and seating areas. Also, additional indoor bathroom facilities, and then an events venue with temporary stage. Next slide, please. So the neighborhood meeting for this project was held in the spring of 2019. And it was fairly well attended. I believe that there was over 30 members of the public that attended the meeting. And as noted on this slide, there are a number of issues that were raised at the meeting. And included in the packet there was a summary by the applicant of the meeting.
So next slide, please.
And then following the neighborhood meeting in April, their application was formally submitted last summer. And when the applications were submitted, notices were sent out to surrounding property owners and other interested parties who had expressed interest in reviewing this project. property was also posted. The applicant and as noted on here, we’ve received some correspondence, both in terms of concerns regarding the project and on the next slide. There’s a list of individuals who provided some comments in regard of support for the project as well. And also included in the packet was the response that was provided by the applicant to some of the issues raised by the correspondence that was provided in the public. Next slide, please. This slide just details some of The comments are provided and support from the public for this proposal, and this information and in addition to the specific emails, all the correspondence was included in the packet as well.
Next slide, please.
So notices for the public hearing originally were sent in June and that was in anticipation of the original planned public hearing on June 24. Since that meeting was postponed to a date certain there was not a requirement to send out additional notices. And so, we did receive those some correspondence prior to the June 24 meeting and that information was included in the packet. And this slide lists some of the reasons and concerns that were expressed by members of the public and other interested parties regarding the proposal. And then we today we did receive a couple of items of correspondence, one with expressing concerns, and one in support the proposal and assuming that the Commission received those this afternoon. If not, I can, I can describe those in more detail. Next slide please. So this slide just notes a few procedural items. So the plan is only Commission is the decision making body for conditional use site plan. The Commission’s decision is subject to appeal to city council. And the applicant is responsible for demonstrating that the application meets the applicable review criteria and municipal code standards.
Next slide, please.
So this is a list of substantive topics that were discussed during the DRC review. So there’s a lot of detail included in the communication so I’m not planning to address So each of these, I know that the applicant as part of their presentation is planning to address these items in more detail. So we didn’t want to duplicate information presented to the commission this evening. After the applicants presentation staff is available to respond to questions.
Next slide please.
As noted in your communication staff is recommending conditional approval subject to the conditions listed in the communication and PC resolution 2024 B. So the conditions listed here and then they continue on to the next slide as well are intended to address code requirements and review criteria compliance primarily related to compatibility and environmental protection. The intent is for left hand to demonstrate that will be a good neighbor and environmental steward by monitoring mitigating potential impacts.
Next slide please.
So this just continues the conditions of approval that are included in the packet as well as the Planning zoning commission resolution four B. and staff was happy to discuss those conditions with the commission if you have questions regarding them. So in addition to the conditions listed in the PCR for B, there are a couple other items for the Commission’s consideration this evening. One is whether the commission wants to consider adding additional or adding a condition that would limit the number of frequency of events. The other is whether the commission wants to consider granting an extension request if the commission approves the application. That was part of the materials that was submitted, as part of the packet left hand had requested that if the commission is to grant approval that they consider granting an additional year extension for this project. Normally once a site plan is approved, there is a year timeframe by which the applicant needs to get a building permit and start construction. This request with To extend that to two years instead of the normal one year period. And obviously the reason for the request is related to the covid pandemic, and dependent upon social distancing and gathering restrictions left animated may need to defer construction. So next slide, please. So again, that concludes my brief remarks. The applicant will present next Mary Taylor with Russell mill studio start the presentation. And I think Eric Wallace is also planned to make some remarks. Also in attendance this evening, I believe our representatives from in addition to left hand Brewing Company, there’s pinion to environmental and wave engineering, perhaps I believe, and then after that the Commission can ask questions of the applicant and staff or if they decided they prefer to open the public hearing, they can do that and then ask questions for the applicant and staff. So thank you.
Thank you, Brian. This Taylor, would you like Do your presentation on colors.
Yeah, sure. Do you want me to share my screen or are you?
I can get your presentation up when you’re ready.
Okay, great. whenever you’ve got that I’m ready.
everyone hear me? Okay.
Yeah. Okay. Great. Thank you. Thanks to the planning and zoning commission and everyone that’s logged on this evening. We just wanted to kind of run through, you know, the project as a whole, but also just talk about the changes and the mitigation measures that we’ve really taken seriously throughout this process
and how we how we anticipate this project moving forward. Next slide, please.
All right. Well, good evening, everybody.
Here’s just to introduce what we’ve been working on America awesome. The President found co founder of left hand Brewing Company we’ve been, we’ve been here on Boston avenue for 27 years now. Trying to build build community and bring good beer to the world. It seems like that one’s been solved. And now we’re continuing to focus on improving and investing in our local community. The this beer garden is it isn’t an idea that’s kind of been gestating for for over a decade, through a number of different variations that we have shared and socialized with a bunch of people. The plan that we’re presenting now has been informed by meetings that predate the 2019 April 2019 meeting. We had meetings in April of 2018 as well. We have taken a lot of input, we have signal nificantly modified our plans create a space where we can host people host events, host fundraisers, perhaps take some of the load off of Roosevelt where some of our larger projects and fundraisers take place. probably recall we took over from the online Symphony guild Oktoberfest many years ago once that fest started to really struggle and, and have revived that. And we’re running a number of other larger events in the park expense that we can fit down here at the brewery we’d really prefer to be at the brewery. The getting getting to this point so far has been like I said, just ending for a decade and we’ve been working on a little more seriously for a couple of years. We’ve spent $300,000 so far to get through the design and the planning and all of that and then undertaking the demolition of all The buildings and doing all the environmental mitigation that was required, as well. So we’ve taken a lot of time and an awful lot of our money to get to this point. So we’re really hoping that you will recognize the contributions we’ve made to the community so far, you know, between our fundraising events, our foundation and and the contribution that we make to the community, bringing in a lot of a lot of dollars from the outside from all the beer that we ship out of Longmont and a lot of the money that’s coming into Longmont as one of the primary tourist attractions here in the city itself. And I’ll be here able to able to answer questions. We’re really intending to turn this into more of a park like space in the in the middle of our industrial park that that we live in, work in and make it a really pleasant place to host folks We would, I would love that we, if we had it now it’d be really great. Given the the need for social distancing, you’ll probably have noticed if you’ve driven past the brewery, we’ve expanded and put some shade sales and tables and seating out in the parking lot in order to host overflow crowds and keep people fake. We continually repeat to our crew in the brewery that we intend to be part of the solution both economically by operating safely and keeping our people healthy, and continuing to make and sell beer and also kind of give some people some relief safely in in our tasting room. So I’m sure that several of you on the call probably enjoyed visiting us and having a beer with your friends. So that’s that’s all I’ve really got to say. To start off, I’m gonna hand it over to Mary who’s way smarter than me.
Thanks, Eric. Thanks for touching on some some points from the left hand perspective. So I’ll start jumping into some of the design topics. So we just wanted to touch on some of the goals and objectives kind of like what Eric talked about creating a community space with high quality and landscape and just creating kind of this really great visitor experience. That right now, you know, isn’t able to serve a large number of people so we really just want to create some ample seating some great, great places for people to socialize, as well as creating a safe and comfortable open space for all. Next slide please. Like Brian touched on our site is located in the mixed use employment zoning. We are surrounded by mostly industrial in this area off Boston Avenue. The property or Project location doesn’t cover the entire property. But we’ll see on a couple other context maps here shortly exactly where that lays within our property. But the that’s the project location off Boston Avenue and Bowen circle. Next slide, please. So here we are the project. Like I said, the project location is right off Boston Avenue, just to the east of the left hand production and taproom. And just across the street is some other left hand property as well. And then just to the east of us is also owned by left hand. So we just wanted to kind of highlight that most of the property surrounding our project location is in fact owned by left hand. And lastly, just south of our project location is not included in this project. We don’t intend on developing that as part of this project at this time.
Next slide, please.
The current existing site conditions actually have changed a little bit since we started this process. The there were some existing buildings on site that have been through a special sampling and abatement already. So that’s great. We were able to clean up the site and create a kind of an open gravel lot that doesn’t really have anything going on. There’s no vegetation or habitat on site. And, again, we have cleaned this up and demo net per all city and state regulations.
So before, before the
before the abatement happened, we did have a couple buildings on site in the habitat study. those buildings are shown so we really just wanted to make it clear that all of those have been been demoed. like Eric mentioned, we have spent quite a bit of money on cleaning up the site and really trying to figure out what’s there in the soil conditions. So everything’s looking good so far.
Next slide, please.
We’ve had two neighborhood meetings for this particular property. One was on April 8 2018. And I know some of the community members are familiar with that. We had an overall master plan that showed quite a larger extent of the project, not what we’re proposing here. But we what we heard from that is that really, there was a lot of concern on what’s happening with the st. Frame Creek, you know, are we able to build where we’re proposing? How do we make this work? So we really thought about that critically and decided to move forward, what we presented on April 30 2009. team was a completely different concept that was getting out of the way parents setback, scaling back the project limits and focusing on an open space. Developing the lot that right now is just kind of an eyesore, as we saw in the photos before, off Boston Avenue. So we really, really tried to make a point of let’s minimize any impact in any sort of way that we can. So what we heard from that April 30, meeting, the big takeaways were events, noise on like, how do people access this space? is it available for rental? You know, what are the environmental impacts on the st brand Creek? And lastly, how is parking to be handled. So, those were the main things that we’ve heard and have addressed throughout this process and we’ll kind of touch on those points, you’re moving forward.
Next slide, please.
So what we wanted to talk about here was that we did in fact get out of that right right parents setback like I mentioned, when we first started the project, this plan is is pretty different. So, we have no structures being proposed and the right parents setback and no infrastructure in the st. Green corridor. Right now, our project and limits are pretty much just in that gravel lot along with some Ada parking and proposed proposed crosswalk, things like that, but we have all major infrastructure is completely out of the right pairings that back and we are not doing any sort of development in that kind of southern portion below that existing surface drive.
Excellent slide, please.
Expand on kind of what we’re looking at for the context is actually the resilience same frame for the city of Longmont is going to be using that southern portion of our property, which is, you can see in that kind of maroon color is going to be using that area. Thank you for staging for the resilient st brain and for anyone that isn’t familiar with that project. Essentially, that whole area and light blue approximately is going to be renovated to accommodate the st ring corridor and the bikeway. So we don’t have any plans shown here. But essentially, that whole area is going to be dropped about eight or nine feet and going to accommodate any sort of like additional water, water, infrastructure, things like that. That’s not our project. That’s through the resilient st frame through the city of Long month. But we really wanted to show that Maroon area is going to be used as a staging area for that project. So we’re working with the city on making sure that they have the land that they need to complete that project and to enhance the st green corridor. So that whole habitat there is going to actually be ripped up and renovated and improved just along the perimeter of our property. And lastly, with that project with that resilient same frame, a berm of earthwork berm is going to kind of align the southern part of our property along the perimeter. So that kind of helps create a separation between anything that might be happening on our property with the same frame bikeway in the same frame corridor.
Next slide, please.
So here is the same plan that Brian had brought up earlier. I apologize if the font is a little small for anybody, feel free to ask questions after, but we’ll just kind of run through some of the design features that we’re showing. The biggest thing is that we’re showing it an artificial lawn, open space there in the middle that a big green area. Thank you for pointing that out. You know, that’s, that’s really kind of the that’s the heart of this project. And we really want to create this space that can be used by the community, whether it be a farmers market, or a musical act or just relaxing, you know, and having a beer in the sun and we really want that space to be open and flexible for whatever might come in the future. around the perimeter of that lawn, we’ve got some we’ve got extensive landscape, to just create a really nice welcoming garden feel. You know that Long along the entire perimeter of the project extends. So we’ve got quite a few trees proposed. And overall, we have 30% 37% of the entire proposed design is enhanced landscapes. So trees, shrubs, grasses, so it’s a pretty large number over the entire square footage. And with the artificial lawn included, that’s almost 70% of the entire site is open space and, and landscape. So we’re pretty proud of that. Just to the south of that lawn is kind of a shipping container renovated into an outdoor bar, and we’ll see a picture of that next. But that’s kind of a seasonal serving station, pretty simple, but just kind of plays on that industrial feel of the area. And we’ll have kind of a concrete band around that so people can comfortably access, getting getting a beer or whatever. And then We have tables and chairs, beer garden tables and umbrella tables. lining that whole area gives some people some shade, but also kind of this communal communal seating area, opportunities for a couple food trucks along what we’re calling our promenade on, which is kind of running north to south and that tan color up to Boston Avenue. So that’s how people will be circulating mostly throughout the site. Next, we have some additional restrooms, which is kind of in the south east corner of the site. That property just to the east is owned by left hand brewing as we saw in the context plan, but we’ll be adding 1010s 10 fixtures, men and women restrooms to accommodate any sort of event that may be happening here but also, you know, as we know it breweries, the restrooms are used quite a bit. So we just wanted to make sure that we were covering all of our bases there. We are adding eight additional Ada parking stalls including van accessible in that that’s a an existing parking lot owned by left hand that’s used by left Left hand operations now. So we’ll restrike that. We’ve got that graded. We have all of the elevations there, maybe made sure that that’s ADA accessible. We’ve got that taken care of. And then lastly, along Boston Avenue, we have an enhanced right of way. Right now the sidewalk isn’t in the greatest condition. So we plan on reconstructing that right away the sidewalk at a ramp and kind of creating this entry feature with the left hand symbol on the concrete and 10 bike racks to accommodate 20 bikes there. There’s no bike parking on site, so we wanted to accommodate some additional cyclists may be coming off the Greenway or so forth. And We can talk about parking if anyone has any questions about that later. But there is a parking lot across the street. Or it’s an it’s an open lot that is used for parking. So that will accommodate visitors and patrons coming to the space or to the top room next door.
And lastly, our water quality will be taken care of from this site. Right now there’s an existing detention pond on the southwest corner of the site. Yeah, there thank you. We’re going to make sure that that’s brought up to code and is treating all of our water on site so that we’re not we’re not overwhelming the storm sewer system.
Next slide, please.
So here’s some photo or perspective renderings of what that outdoor bar might look like. So pretty simple, but really interesting. Kind of using that industrial feel, renovating a shipping container and was creating something really Unique for this space.
Next slide, please.
So now we’re going to kind of kind of get into some of the sound considerations on this project, which has been something that we’ve really taken, taken seriously since since the beginning and how we’re going to just make this, you know, the best place that we can be for the community. So this this study that we did initially in July 2019, by wave engineering, our sound acoustic consultant was our initial thoughts. I know that’s not great quality, so I apologize. But as you can kind of see, we had a temporary stage location to the north almost along Boston Avenue. And we just found that that wasn’t really working. And, you know, we weren’t able to achieve the sound levels that we really wanted. And along with some feedback from the public and from city staff is that This might not have been the right approach. So we started to kind of look at some other options after this, we wanted to address here was that we looked at some common sound levels in DBA. You know what that means. So, for example 50 DBA is just common office noise or small town residents, outdoor noise 70 DBA is, you know, a large transformer at 50 feet, a dog barking at 50 feet, things like that for people to kind of understand what what those numbers might mean.
Next slide, please.
So here’s where we are in our proposed condition. As you can see in the slide before we had that temporary stage up along Boston Avenue, we’ve created a larger buffer and that North and moved our stage actually to the southeast corner. The other two kind of diagrams are not really meant to be read, but we just wanted to show that we did look at some other scenarios, and did some data calculations for those on what we think those sound levels might be. So what we landed on as our proposed condition is what is shown here, we have about 80 DBA at the north west corner of the site. And then kind of getting into the st frame, the area in question is 58 DBA. On our side of our fence, we do have a fence and berm proposed along that edge. So 58, just as a reference is somewhere between kind of normal office noise and a conversation with another person at three feet as we get closer to the river, so at the walking path, that same rain Greenway, that’s 40 DBA, which could be you know, compared to soft stereo music or like library noise so, so pretty, pretty soft. And then as we get down actually into the river 34 and 40 DBA You know, that’s somewhere between rustling leaves, or like somebody whispering to that kind of soft stereo music. And that’s, that’s down near the river. And then lastly, we’re at about 50 DBA at the development across the street, so kind of where that area starts. And these numbers are calculated at about five feet above ground, so about an average human, your level. And we we have calculated some numbers that other heights and we’ll we’ll address that shortly. But that’s what these numbers are. So some things that we were what were suggested by our noise specialists and as well as the land use code for our operational logistics, based on these numbers would be you know, all shows the end by 10pm or which is set forth land use code. So that’s our plan is that no shows go past 10pm. So we’re we’re meeting those requirements. Next is to monitor the sound at the perimeter of the property during those events, which is what lefthand does already during their events at Roosevelt Park. So that’s already something that they’re familiar with. So that’s great. They work with Arkansas, which is local in Longmont, and they’ll be able to help with
with that monitoring. And then
lastly, we’re really doing everything that we can to abide by that land use code section about maximum permissible sound pressure levels. So that’s all in all, that’s what we’re trying to achieve throughout these studies as well as on site monitoring.
Next slide, please.
The next study that we have done is habitat considerations. And that can be found in our habitat conservation study and our submittal. But we just want to kind of highlight the main points here. First, that study was done by pinyon. Environmental or biologist, environmental engineers. And basically what the conclusions are, is that there is no evidence of sensitive or rare plants on the site. And of all possible species within the vicinity or the area, none are likely to occur within the project area due to the lack of habitat. So when we looked at those existing site photos, as you could see, you know, there was really not much going on. Our project is out of the same the st. Green corridor in the right period setback so you know, we’re good to go there. We don’t Have any structures in those areas and the impact of risk resilient st brain that’s that city of Longmont project that will be happening in that light blue area, the approximate renovation extends there as you can kind of see it’s going to be affecting that habitat along the same brain. And lastly, according to the habitat study, certain measures could be taken into consideration. That includes limiting construction to daylight hours, which is best management practices. We already plan on doing that post construction site restoration, including native plantings. You know, like I said, we’re improving this site by 69% with open space and 37% with improved landscaping, fencing to limit traffic in and out of the st brain Creek area. We do plan on having fencing along the entrance. Higher projects. So along the entire perimeter structures or small trees for more bird nesting sites, we do have a quite a bit of canopy proposed we have that along the entire South edge of the property or excuse me along the project limits as well as throughout the site. And lastly drainage and debris mitigated on site, we are enhancing that detention pod into a water quality structure.
Next slide please.
So, kind of the last study that we did with our latest submittal in December or and has been updated since then, per the last planning and zoning meeting last month, is you know, what, what are we looking at in terms of habitat sound assessment. So combining all of that information that we have from the noise study In the habitat conservation plan,
can we identify any sort of substantial long term effects and, and the conclusion is that there are no substantial long term impacts to wildlife. And that overall, there really is only a 1.8, DBA and dBc increase, which has no really not considered to have any sort of potential on species disturbance. Lastly, these locations identified in the noi study as well as the habitat sound assessment, you know, these are the maximums but other areas are likely to have lower noise levels. So, you know, these are these are the maximum shown the graph that we’re seeing here, the difference between what we looked at before and on this one is that we have DBA and dBc levels for both five feet 13 feet above ground. And the reason for that being, it’s more likely for save birds migrating to be higher up than a human. So we wanted to look out that 13 feet above ground is more applicable. So as you can see, the numbers are a little bit different. And in our table in the right hand, right, upper right hand corner. That’s where our existing sound levels are. So we took some sound measurements on site. And so for example, at the nearest edge of the river, we’re at 57.3 DBA. Right now, as it stands, and then we’re increasing it to 59 DBA. So and that’s at five feet. or excuse me, 13 feet. So the changes only 1.8 and that’s using an algorithm that that calculates that average So that’s just one example. As you can see those numbers on the chart, the change in that delta is only 1.83 Db and dBc.
So the bottom line of this slide is that we just want to show that there is no anticipated disturbance based on all of the data that we have gathered.
Next slide, please.
So based on all of this information, I know that’s kind of a lot, but based on all of the noise and all of the light studies that we’ve done, which we haven’t really covered, but we’ve done studies on all of that information, what have we done in this plan to make changes to accommodate any impact that we see possible? So I’m just going to run through this list. increase the amount of vegetated area with plantings by 37% increase the overall landscape, including that artificial lawn by 69%. Currently, there’s zero percent landscape on the site, keeping construction activities, normal daylight hours, a six foot high cedar privacy fencing along the entire perimeter of the site. So you can see it’s in that kind of
yellow dotted line.
We’ve coordinated with the resilient st brain project team and we we plan on continuing those conversations and making sure that that we have what we need from them but also that they have all the information from us as well in regards to water quality, drainage, things like that. A berm along the entire southern edge of the property that will be actually incorporated into the resilient st frame project provide a significant tree canopy for enhanced habitat. renovate the existing detention pond into a water quality structure so no water or debris is leaving the site. Probably erosion control during construction activities photometrics, which is something that we did study for daily use, but also for potential event use to ensure that the land use code is not at all times of the day. It’s now an assessment by qualified scientists to understand the potential for wildlife impact. Look at both DBA and dBc levels, which is something that, you know, the public had brought up to, for us to really look at those dBc level. So we did do that. And then lastly, understand the existing sound levels and compared to the proposed sound level. So what does that overall change and we just talked about that.
Next slide, please.
So last week, lastly, we kind of want to just talk a little bit about some of the management strategies that we will be doing on this site. And I know that left hand they’ve been doing events in Roosevelt Park and So having these events here on site on their property will help limit the impact on that public park, which is great. So, the additional restroom which has 20 fixtures 10 women 10 men, like we talked about in the building that existing will be renovating that all recyclable and compostable products as much as we can. During events as well as daily use an additional add a parking lot. Those eight spaces including man accessible cedar, six foot high cedar privacy fence on the perimeter for access, and safety and we’ve already worked with the fire department on where their access points, Knox boxes, things like that will be provide many seating types for all types of patrons. enhance the right away condition along Boston Avenue. Just try and make that as safe as we can and we’ve actually added an additional pathway Made of crushed limestone for visitor queuing and case that might come about an additional crosswalk at Boston Avenue and active sound monitoring during events.
So, in the in the
letter that we wrote to the planning and zoning commission, we had some information about anticipated events. So, that’s what’s shown here. We anticipate those being Friday and Friday through Sunday. So pretty much just on the weekends, during months that daylight and weather allows. So that’s approximately May, October, could be musical acts, rentals and community events such as farmers markets, or, you know, whatever yoga in the park.
And then lastly, the amount of events per year that’s anticipated in 2022, a total calendar year about 31 and then in 23 2023, approximately 48 Over the course of that year.
So just to kind of summarize, we wanted to show, you know, that not only have we considered the land use code, but just really some of those important points that, you know, have come up quite a bit through public process and, and through the DRC process. First one being the maximum permissible sound pressure levels. Based on all of the studies that we’ve done and the changes that we’ve made to the design. We’re meeting that that code for DDA levels, protection of rivers, streams, wetlands and riparian areas, were actually not within the riparian setback so it’s not applicable to our project, habitat and species protection standards. We have done the habitat conservation study by a qualified scientist, and as well as some additional studies that noise Impact Assessment. And those recommendations have been implemented into the plan. habitat and species protection standards. Again, qualified scientist has prepared all of those plans, outdoor lighting, we’ve done a photometric plan for just daily use as well as for events, which was by the request of planning staff. So we have done that. And then lastly, the landscape standard. So we’re exceeding all of the requirements for for the landscape plan.
Next slide, please.
So that kind of sums it up. And thank you so much for your time. I hope that addressed all of your main points and questions.
Thank you, Miss Taylor on in the interest of because we have these five minute delays to get people are in and out of the public hearings. I’d like to hold questions From the commission and and just go straight to the public hearing so that our our public members are not waiting excessively long. So we will go to the public hearing part of of this item. For any public wishing to speak on this public hearing item, please call in now. The information about to read is also being displayed on your screen as you can see on please dial 1-669-900-6833. And when prompted, enter the meeting ID of 83087295123 phone numbers 1-669-900-6833 enter the meeting id 83087295123. We’ll take a five minute break but when we get back if we have public who wants to speak about this, you’ll get five minutes A piece and, and we’ll go from there. So we’ll take a five minute break. Thanks
Chair I’m gonna take this slide down shortly if you guys want to come back in and show your video
And looks like we’ve got two guests that have called in.
And let me know when you’re ready. I’ll let them in.
Okay, so Susan,
I’m ready. Is everybody else all the other commissioners here?
Yes. 1235 as my as my sixth one.
Commissioner height is here, turn on your video.
I’m gonna go ahead Let our guests in. Okay, and then we’re going to lock the meeting. Okay.
Hello, we’ve let two people in through our call in the first guest, I’m going to unmute your caller for five to your phone number ends in the three digits. 452. I’ve just unmuted you. Go ahead, please state your name and address for the record all in the first character. I’m going to unmute your caller 452 your phone number.
Hi, my name is Sherry. One. Can you hear me? Yes, we can go ahead. Okay, thanks. Sherry. My life 2113 rangeview Lane here in Longmont resident of 35 years. The proposal for left hand brewing development will have a huge impact on the same frame Creek habitat and the wildlife that support people will also be impacted including Greenway users and residents living right next to the development site. neighborhoods to the North will also be adversely affected. The main issue is noise pollution. Lefthand music events have historically been rock and roll, which almost by definition is very loud. According to the planning department’s review of this application, this proposal would not meet current city regulations regarding amplified sound for private property. This is especially concerning for the residence of the same frame mobile home community directly across a inframe Creek from left hand brewery. The stage location is at the south end of the property, suggesting the sound will be projected nor common sense dictates that loud sounds will be heard in all directions, especially overwater in open areas. mobile homes are not usually well equipped to mitigate sound. This is a social justice issue of 174 names on the city’s notification list 120 Before addresses were in the same frame mobile home community, and 93 had Latino surnames. I doubt you’ve heard from many of the hundred and 36 households in this community. Hopefully it’s all our hearts have been pierced with beginning awareness concerning disadvantaged and Marvin, marginalized members of our country, and our own Long live community. This consciousness might factor into your thinking as you consider this proposal. All Greenway users will be negatively impacted by the noise as they pass through this section of our Greenway during events. People frequent this peaceful natural Greenway on bikes rollerblades and running or walking to get quiet exercise. Listen to and observe birds and other wildlife and enjoy the natural music of the creek. Quiet conversations and contemplation will be interrupted by blaring music. As you are aware the same brain Creek is a wildlife movement corridor. Wildlife moves at night and it’s especially adversely affect By lights and noise while the events are set to be finished at 10pm This will still negatively impact wildlife and this whole area. The impacts to the riparian habitat and Creek health is unknown at this time. It doesn’t stop at the hundred and 50 foot setback. In your planning communication Longmont Natural Resources Department suggested quote, further monitoring and mitigation may be necessary over time and should be required and implemented over the life of this project. And quote, should you consider approving this application, annual reviews need to be required to assess impacts and possible mitigation to habitat and wildlife. Finally, the applicant is requesting an extension for up to two years for this site plan proposal. They intend to delay construction until the coronavirus crisis has been resolved. As you are well aware development and construction projects have proceeded Through COVID-19 restrictions, it is inappropriate for the applicant to be submitting this proposal. Now if they are not planning on proceeding for up to two years. As a body you should either deny this proposal at this time allowing the applicant to resubmit when ready to proceed Of course, or not grant anytime extensions. Thank you for your time and service.
Thank you Miss Malloy,
although this time allowing it
Alright, Susan, we have another caller.
Yes, we do color your phone number ends in 323. I’m going to unmute. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Great demo 520. Yes, Jamie CML 525 East 16th Avenue. I’m pleased the left hand Brewing Company has listened to concerns and scaled back its proposed amphitheatre change the facing of their temporary stage so that faces North rather than toward the same brain and it’s not seeking a variance to the 150 Foot my parents setback. However, I still have a few concerns slash recommendations. I am pleased left hand has worked to mitigate noise concerns by moving at stage etc. However, I echo city staff recommendations the left hand to chair to city noise ordinances, as well as monitor and mitigate any noise impacts associated with a design venue, particularly low frequency sound which has been linked to negative health impacts to both people and animals. In addition, I am confused as to why left hand is asking for a potential approval extension for starting construction of its proposed beer garden until 2022. If left hand is concerned, this pandemic will extend for another year. Why doesn’t the table its development application until such time as the pandemic is largely abated? This would also allow further progress on the resilience St. vrain flood mitigation project and removal of the parcel from the 100 year floodplain. What benefit does lefthand see from putting its development proposal in now if they then may pause construction for up to two years. Finally, I am concerned regarding the process by which pinyons habitat noise impact assessment was And resubmitted in the initial document, which came before pNz prior to its June meeting, the numbers for predicted high frequency noise levels VBA and low frequency noise levels dBc were incorrect, rather than this being brought up during the public hearing so that members of the public to provide input and identify Commissioner alerted city staff who then got in touch with the applicant contacts Mary Taylor, and the item was pulled from the pNz agenda so that the document could be revised. While the revision to the noise Impact Assessment did not change the conclusion of the report. I believe that all discussion of the application should have been conducted in public including Andy’s discussion of deficiencies. Thank you very much.
Thank you Miss Sima. Susan, is there anybody else?
No, not at this time.
We will close the public hearing on this and we will go to discussion and questions by the Commission. Let me get back to gallery view so I can see you all. Okay. Um, one suggestion And I have some we have a lot of moving parts to this. This is for the commissioners, perhaps we could keep it sort of organized by topic. Maybe we could start with traffic move into environmental, cause that kind of bleeds in with wildlife. touches on noise. But um, but let’s try not to bounce around from one topic to another, if at all possible. So anybody want to kick it off? Also, there’s, you probably have some clarifying questions for Brian Schumacher or Miss Taylor on Brian, I actually do have a couple of those on. In Miss Taylor’s cover letter in our packet, she mentioned that they would be asking for a variance for some trees which were under a utility line along the property line. line on but that is not under consideration, correct? That is correct. commissioners, we determined that that variance was was not applicable to this application. Okay. on just a another sort of procedural thing on if you look at the public emails and communication which we got in our packet, that would be attachment five, go to page 70. There is an email from a property owner nearby name Mary Lacey, who says that, it looks like the border of this project extends into a building that she owns. I just want to clarify if there is any issue with her property.
Commissioner sure neck and the rest of the commissioners. I did recently See that email from Miss Lacey. She was looking at, I believe at the time she was looking at some of the aerial imagery on Boulder County assessor’s website, which tends to skew a little bit with the aerial imagery of the parcel lines. Her parcel and ownership is on the south side of Bowens circle and to the east, so it isn’t immediately adjacent to the proposed beer garden expansion. And so I sent her a copy of the overall plan that was proposed with this project. And I told her I gave her a link to the plans zoning commission and packet for this meeting if she had asked her to contact me if she had additional concerns, and she hasn’t she expressed her thanks for reaching out to her providing the information that I did and I haven’t heard back from Miss Lacey.
Okay, thank you, Bryan.
As initial matter, my zoom
capabilities seem to be lacking. I don’t I can’t figure out how to electronically raise my hand. If anyone has a quick primer and wants to send that to me. As a side note, I’d appreciate it. But I want to kick off the discussions talking about sound. And possibly the first question is for staff, which is, as I understand, I think it’s 10 dot 20 dot 110 or 100. The standard is that for amplified sound, it can’t. It shall not be audible 25 feet from its source, which seems odd to me. are you measuring from the source being the amplifier from which the source originates? Or is it the source being the edge of the property line being the source And if the latter with this particular application, are we looking at the parcel, or are we looking at all of I think it’s Indian piece, but let’s just call it left hand, brewery’s property.
So when I look at that ordinates the way that it reads it’s from the source itself that 25 feet, which again, is is would be very challenging to to meet that standard. I know that enforcement of
that particular section is has typically been done on a complaint basis, as opposed to staff walking around with sound meters and and measuring sound at at the source of the Amplified sound. You know, I know we’ve had examples of other projects, special events where
they’ve been held on private property. And
we’ve told people that if there are potential if there are complaints regarding amplified sound, that, you know, they’ll have to address that and mitigate that as best as they can
to continue on, so
is it that the city well,
so the source of the sound,
literally would be the amplifier.
But it sounds like your city sometimes takes a view that it’s
more of the complaint based nature that if 25 feet from the source of the sound would be, you know, the inside of your living room
which seems almost impossible to me.
In other, let me ask you this. Are there other examples of places in the community where we have outdoor amplified music
on a regular basis, it’s typically then for people that want to have a say, for example, special events on their, on their private property. You know, we’ve issued special events for we’d be brewing and I know lefthand has also had an event on the north side occasionally on the north side of Boston Avenue in their space. And so, those have been issued based on a condition that those are in compliance With noise standards and if there are complaints and they have to address and mitigate those complaints
I’m not sure. Hi, do you have more?
I’m sorry, I yield.
Okay. Commissioner O’Brien in the parks especially the Rosa Parks, there are some events and concerts. This summer is not happening much but and there has been some festivals closing the main streets and concerts.
What are the noise levels on those?
So commissioners there as included in the in the staff communication and as well as the attachment in terms of the city noise standards. There is a exception for special events on public property sources The downtown concerts or the concerts that occur at Roosevelt Park, or any other place in the community where there might be concerts held. And so, there is a there is a exception that allows the decibel level to go up to 80 DBA at the perimeter of the area where the permit is issued for
as noted in the communication that exception does not apply to private property.
Um, Brian I have some questions about this on
this ordinance um so in as we see on table 1020 we OO Hello Did somebody need to chime in there? Okay, um, so table 10 dot 20 dot 110 b daytime noise standards. So we have residential, commercial and industrial levels 5565 and 75 DBA respectively. Then on the next page or no it was the page above that table a was the nighttime noise standards residential 50 commercial 55 Industrial 75 um, during this Taylor’s presentation she showed us a diagram that wave acoustics did that showed that they would meet 55 DBA at the residence but this table indicates that it would need to be 50 DBA at the at the nearest residence during the nighttime when most of their events seem to be planned. If they are concerts,
again, you’re just relying on on complaints coming from neighbors, is that correct?
I typically that’s how that’s been enforced. It’s generally any complaints regarding noise. Regarding events, large events, typically are handled by police. And so if police visit the site and if they are is a potential violation based on a complaint, then they will contact the
proprietor of the event and as sent to address the complaint. So when you say the police visit the site, do you mean they visit the site of the of the person complaining to to measure what the noise level is at the receivers end of things? That’s my understanding. Yes. Okay. All right. And this might be a question for our city attorney Theresa Tate on Paragraph II further down on it’s on the third page when the noise source can be measured from more than one zone, the permissible sound level of the more restrictive zone applies.
I am wondering
how that is interpreted. I’m reading that to mean that because we have a residential zone near this proposed site, and we have other zones narrow as well, that the most restrictive DBA level, which at nighttime would be 50 DBA. would apply also, to the noise levels that would be received in the other zones. Is that correct? and Teresa chime in if you’re the better one to do this.
Take care. Sure enough commissioners. That is my reading of Section 10.20. Point 110 e, that that more restrictive controls for the whole.
Okay. So, Brian or Miss Taylor, could you pull up on wave acoustics analysis on? I believe it’s attachment.
There are some drawings that they have in this.
And if we could maybe see that as a screenshot, that’d be great. I can I can share it. Susan, should I just share it?
Yes, you can. Okay, I’ll share it and to answer Commissioner height on the raise hand, since you’re a co host, you don’t have that option. I believe it’s only for calling users and non co hosts
I am not finding i’m not i’m getting a bunch of,
Oh, I need to getting a bunch of warnings. So I’m zoom is trying to record my computer screen, I need to open the system preferences and allow it. So, um, if somebody else could share the screen, that’d be great.
Brian, could you do it?
So, Susan, I was wondering if you could bring back up. So what I’m sorry, Commissioner schoeneck. Your question which it’s attachment 10 of our packet.
And it’s wave engineerings report. Okay, let me give that a shot. Okay.
It should be out on the internet, right. I can pull it up.
Yeah, it would be there too. Yeah, I’m sorry, my, my apple is hitting me with all sorts of security requests.
It’s no worries.
It’s the great benefit of Apple, right?
Looks like Brian’s got it
that come up. So if you could scroll down to page three. So we have that there it is. Okay. Um, so in this first diagram of theirs, they show their their DBA level at the back of the audience to be 80 decibels. And according to paragraph II, and our city ordinance, as you see on the right hand side, we have 62 decibels hitting the building over there. If you scroll down a little further, you’ll see that 54 decibels is hitting The point just offer their property on 55 decibels hitting the nearest residents. So, Teresa, you’re saying that all of those locations are there’s another 57 decibel location. If the show were at nighttime, all of those locations would need to be at 50 decibels not at 55
cashewnut. commissioners, that’s my understanding of the code.
Okay. So you’re sure I could just interject. So the nighttime standards start after 10pm Oh, they start after 10pm. Okay, all right. But even so, so, so Okay, so we’re looking for 55 decibels, but some of these exceed 55 decibels as we see. Now, if we scroll further down, they have some other versions of this in their appendix, depending on where they place the stage. And we can see that those numbers get even larger such such as 64. Right at the bottom of Bowen circle, if we go to the very last image, we can see that some of those numbers are still exceeding 55. on. So, to me, this poses a problem in the fact that everything that that their engineer is saying is that they’re shooting for 80 decibels at the back of the audience.
and clearly, they’re not going to be able to meet the city ordinance at that level. So let me ask their
their engineer, their sound engineer,
believe that’s been seep, Mr. seap on what means to be The sound pressure level at the back of the audience, for somebody to feel that they are getting what might be considered an adequate concert experience.
And this has been Can you all hear me? Yes. Great. So the level for, you know, an adequate rock concert would probably be around the 80 decibel level that we used for our report is what would be considered satisfactory to have a concert experience when you get below 80. It’s not really loud enough that you know, people would be satisfied probably, especially if it was a ticketed event. You know, if you’re paying money to go see a show and it’s not loud enough, then people aren’t happy and feel like they didn’t get their money’s worth. So that’s based on similar venues and people’s responses. Some research we did for some other venues where they added a noise level limits and they were restrictive enough that the concert goers were unhappy with the levels that they had to maintain in order to make the neighbors happy.
Okay, thank you, Mr. seat. Um, another follow on question for you with this on. From your expertise, would it be easier to control to attain the necessary 80 decibels for the concert going experience and to control all of the sound that’s occurring outside if this were a physical structure instead of an open air situation like is presented in front of us.
So yeah, if it was an enclosed building, that would certainly give you more control over the sound levels.
Okay, and, I mean, would that building needs to be masonry or does it matter what its construction is
Yes, masonry wouldn’t be better for controlling the low frequency sound in particular, more mass blocks more of the low frequency sound.
Okay. Um, while I have you here, this gets partly to Commissioner ons question about community events such as things like concerts downtown or or rhythm on the river. There’s usually concerts at the Boulder County Fairgrounds. Why is it? Like let’s assume that they’re that they’re hitting on the standards or according to their special event permit, that they’re not exceeding those standards. Why is it that that sometimes we can hear that music sometimes we can hear the lyrics, you know, I’m very far away, say like a mile away.
Sure, so there’s a few things going on. At night, the sound sometimes can travel further, depending on weather conditions. And sometimes you get a unique events called a temperature inversion, where the temperature layers in the atmosphere flip, and that can actually cause the sound, and where it starts propagating up, and then will turn and bend back towards the ground. And so it can even kind of skip over an area and then land farther away from the venue. That sort of thing can happen the train in between affects the propagation. So if you have a lot of pavement, in this industrial area, there’s a lot of hard surfaces, the sound can travel further than if it was a forested open area, though, attenuate more of the noise between the locations. And the wind direction can affect the sound propagation. So all those things can kind of create unique conditions, in addition to just different concerts might have different sound spectris depending on the types of music if you have a blues band that’s going to sound different from I’m a EDM band that has a lot of bass for hip, opera, dance music. So all those things can affect the sound levels as well.
Okay, thank you for that explanation. I’m, Brian, back to you. So, given our city attorney’s interpretation of paragraph II of our ordinance and given what Mr. seap said that 80 decibels at the back of the audience is what would be needed for left hands customers to be satisfied with their experience at a concert, and yet, they would therefore be exceeding 55 decibels in these other locations. How can they ever meet the city code? And why isn’t this in and of itself a reason for tonight?
if they obviously if they can beat the standard That was one of the conditions of approval that they need to beat the standard. And if they can’t meet the standard they need to read my opinion is that they need to reduce the volume to meet the standard. Obviously, there are controls associated with the concert that they can reduce volume levels.
So basically it puts lefthand in a bind on that for them to please their customers for an event out an open air concert, they would risk breaking the city code. But to always meet the city code as they seem to desire to do
in good faith.
They would have to upset their customers.
Okay, I’m going to leave that where it is so that we as the commission can discuss that a little more than More to discuss. I’m Brian D mind, I’m sharing your screen so I can go back to
you better. Okay. Commissioner Koehler.
So, thanks, Chairman Sharon, I have a question, I guess related to the topic that you’re on the way I was reading this, if they end all their events by 10, they’re really required to be at the daytime level, which is 55. Is that correct?
Brian, Brian confirmed that a little earlier. So I I stand corrected. Yes. 55.
So to me, it doesn’t seem like they’re the application as it is in violation as long as they’re agreeing to enter shows by 10. And they’re meeting the 55
threshold, but it is in violation because they’re not meeting 55 at other times, locations because the most restrictive zone applies their meeting 55 at the residence, but in these other areas on their diagram, such as on the right hand side of the image, they have decimal levels of 6256 57 on so they’re exceeding it. And in the text of the report, it said that at the intersection of Bowen and grand Street, they would hit a decibel level of 75 dBm.
Okay, so then my next question might be for Ben, I think in that figure, one of the noise study
the nearest residents, I think it’s that mobile home park to the south that said it the DBA is 55. And I believe that was described as a maximum. To the words exactly we’re across the river at the nearest residents the highest predicted levels 55 DBA. However, in the text above that figure, they describe those more as average So my question is, are these numbers that we look we’re looking at in these figures are they maximums are they averages?
So the the numbers there are all average levels. So given that music goes up and down in level, that would be an average over time. And my intent in that comment, which is that of the area, the residential area to the south, that location that’s shown at 55 is the loudest or maximum level within that property. But it’s not an actually a maximum level. It’s the the average level for that property.
If that makes sense,
not completely Sorry, can you sure
it’s the maximum for the property
for the property. We looked at different locations throughout that property and found that that particular spot on the property would be the loudest of all the locations of Throughout the mobile home park, based on its orientation to the stage and the distance, but the level itself is not a peak level or a maximum level, it’s an average level as the music’s playing,
do you know how much fluctuation there is in these numbers? Are we talking 10, DBA 15 to
certainly be less than 10. It depends on how its measured it you can get into a lot of details of what sort of time weighting you apply to the measurements. And if you’re using slow or fast weighting, those numbers are going to be different. But it’s usually on the order of something like plus or minus five decibels. Okay,
and then I guess while we’re on the topic of the noise, the studies seem to assume that the berm would we would be built actually it was the four foot berm and a six foot fence. Can you speak to the timing of that went? Because it was my understanding that’s actually being built as part of the same brain, the resilient St. Brain project, will that be built before this project would come in? Or during or after? Will there be a time I guess when that’s not there, and the project would be emitting sound?
might be a better question for Mary, but it’s my understanding that the events would not happen until the Birman events are in place.
Anything further commissure cola?
No, no, not on this topic for now.
Thank you, Mr. seat. Are there other
structures or construction means that left hand could implement to try to keep their open Park Feeling space. But mitigate these, these sound waves off site? Could you put more berms in? Could you put concrete fencing up along one wall, or that just deflect sound in a different direction.
That’s something that we spent a lot of time studying, looking at different heights and placement of barrier walls and things like that. So in order to block the sound from getting from the stage to say the residences to the south, you have to block that line of sight. And the challenge is that the sound isn’t coming from head height or five feet above the ground, you have these speakers that are flown above the stage, usually 15 to 20 feet in the air might vary. Since it’s not a permanent, fixed age, it’s going to be depending on what equipment they rent and how they hang it, but I think we used a height of somewhere around 18 feet as an estimate. And so we have to block a line of sight from that height across the river. So the height in between in order to block that line of sight. It has to also be very tall. Walls going up to 20 feet or more in order to even start to block that line of sight. So it becomes a really large imposing structure, especially when it’s at the property line along the bike path there. You’re walking along and you have a 20 foot wall next to you. It’s not the most comfortable, inviting environment either. So some of the things that we considered but then ultimately ruled out and ended up using this stage orientation to try to correct more of the sound to the north and away from those properties rather than building a massive structure there.
Oh, you’re done.
Sorry, that was a wave to say thank you and I shouldn’t have waived or
caught my eye. Commissioner lucado.
Just I need a clarification with the predicted numbers. Are they considering the All this six foot fence that is going to be built and all the trees and the shrubbery around it or
or is that not possible to predict yet?
The predicted numbers do include the effect of the berm in that six foot fence on top.
I have a question and it might be both for Mr. seed and the consultant from Kenyon. Brian, would you mind pulling up on pinions noise assessment? attachment? It’s attachment number 13.
In our packet, yeah, I’m getting there. Okay. I’m sure you’re very familiar with all the attachments, Brian.
All right, bear with me for a second.
Okay, if you could scroll down to page two that’s that’s where we have started table. Table. Yep. Oh, sorry. That’s the habitat guns. Sorry. stop sharing that.
There we go.
You see that now? Yes, that looks like the right one.
Okay, so we’ve got this table and Miss Taylor pointed this out. But I have some questions about this on Brian if you could just scroll up just a tad up so we can see the text above on Erica on So the text in the middle of the paragraph says the predicted noise levels. So that’s the second number in the in the column was logarithmically added to the existing noise levels. So the very first number in order to evaluate total cumulative noise levels and to develop a total predicted increase in noise levels. So, either Mr. seap or or our representative from pinyon. Can you explain to me and demonstrate how, say like on the first line of this table 53.7 decibels added to 59 decibels equals 55.5 decibels. Um, because, frankly, I went and found some decibel calculators online. And that’s not what comes out when you just do a simple thing. Addition of 53.7 59, you get an actual higher number. So I would like to know exactly how you arrived at those numbers, or if those total predicted numbers are incorrect.
Is This is Jake from Kenyon environmental.
So what we did to calculate these values was did a field measurement. And we got the, let’s say, 53.7 for the first value there. And we added the 59 of the predicted value to it. So to add it, it’s not just a simple 53.7 plus 59. You add it logarithmically. So the log of 59 is 1.8. So that’s the change that you’re seeing there.
So if we take the existing plus the predicted value, we get 55 points. Five now first case,
but you’re adding 53.7 decibels to 59 decibels to reach the sum of those and I understand that they’re added logarithmically. But every online logarithmic calculator that I’ve used says that the sum of 53.7 decibels with 59 decibels is 60.1 decibels, not 55.5 decibels. So your difference is far greater than 1.8. So we could we could pull up an online calculator or you could show me how you’re actually doing the math. But I need to see how you actually reached 55.5. If you like we could use one of these online calculators that I found
I could, I could show you the equation I an Excel that we used. But what we did, just to describe it again, is took the existing as a set value. So it’s not an emission source, whereas the predicted would be the emission that we’re getting from the actual venue. So that actually comes to an increase of
vlog 59 which is 1.8.
so so you’re you’re saying that your text is wrong, that you’re not adding 53.7 to 59? That that you’re actually see You’re confusing me because your text says you added the predicted to the existing
3.7 to 59 I don’t understand why.
What Why are you taking the log of 59
the, the sound pressure level and decibels that we’re adding to the existing environment.
Right? So the existing is 53, you’re adding in 59 decibels and so you need to add 53.7 to 59 not take the log of just 59.
So, we’re adding an additional noise source is how we consider this. And that’s why we need to add it logarithmically okay to the to the set value of 23.7.
So, let’s pull up your your formula and show me how you actually did the math because I’m still still not not able to get in agreement with you here.
I’ll share my screen with you.
Um, give me just a minute.
Yeah. Susan will help you with that.
Jake, you should see the ability to share your screen now at the bottom of the window.
Okay, do you see it?
Yes, we do. Yes. Okay.
So this is the table that we’re looking at.
Mm hmm. We have
the existing noise. I posted the predicted value. And to get the total,
the existing plus the log of the predicted value.
Why did you take the log of the predicted value instead of just the actual value and add, add decimal to decimal
because this is a set value, it’s not an additional emission. This is just what the background noises so at the furthest edge of the river, it’s already 55.4 DBA and this is going to add
when you have when you add it, you add it logarithmically. So it would add actually another 1.8 to the existing value of 55.4. So, at the furthest edge, we would get 57.2
So, you’re not
Why does your text say that you added the decibels together rather than explain why, in the simplest terms, you can, what it means to add the log of column C two.
it’s basically breaking it down into
so that it’s adding
it logarithmically. So it’s not just an additional 59 the
sound pressure level, it’s actually only an additional 1.8 to the existing noise level.
Now that you have to prove that your your additional level is 1.8, you’re you’re basically saying Oh, but my additional sound level is 1.8. But that’s That’s your conclusion. You’re, you’re using your conclusion to prove your point, which is a logical fallacy. So, the predicted decibel level coming from this concert is 59 decibels, there’s already 53.7 decibels existing. Why not just simply add decimal to decimal? And if you do that you get a much higher number. So your delta is actually much larger.
This is Ellie with pinion Can I jump in with another question that might clarify and this is directed at? I guess Ben the so the predicted decibels at the edge of the
well story do
Sarah, that the the predicted decimals are at the edge of the river. Being 59. Was that based on only the sound coming from the speakers? Or was that? Because what we’re trying to do is show that you know, the existing sound is 53. And
it does the 59 take into account the current noise environment, or is that just starting from zero decibels? decibels? like totally quiet.
The 59 numbers solely from the music venue doesn’t include any adjustments for the background noise level. We haven’t done any measurements on sight of the existing levels for comparison.
Yeah, and the whole log thing. I think what Jake is trying to say that one point if you
am a biologist, I’m not a math person. But if you take the log of 59, that’s 1.8 by Senator saying that your question is, how is that the chain? How is that the change in that might be mixing up the conclusion with the
with what the question is, so I just want to mention that The person that originally wrote this report has moved on from pinyon. I can try to contact them to see if we can get some more information. This is the information that we had, you know, in the project file, but I can attempt to contact her and see if she can give some more clarification. I’m wondering if maybe the confusion with the language is just
the way she phrased it was maybe not as elegant as it could have been phrased. So I can contact her and try to get you some more information.
Well, I appreciate that. But we are in a public hearing and we do usually make a decision by the end of the hair. Okay, I see. Mr. C, let me ask you. Um, even though this was not your report, but you are an acoustic engineer. Am I misunderstanding something here or, or does it make sense to take the 53.7 add 59 decibels to it. Find out what the total decibel level is, and then figure out the difference between that total and the original existing.
I think the combined level from this equation is unfortunately incorrect. Because that’s not the proper formula for TV addition, the number that you’re stating from the online calculator sounds much closer to what should be correct, because when the two DB levels are added together, the sum can’t be lower than the loudest level. It can only be that level or more if the two ends in contribute to each other. So yeah, I think the you said it was 61 point something which sounds correct. Based on the relationship of those two numbers. They’re just
off the top my head. Okay. And could you clarify again, what you told Miss Miller on so the predicted DB a level Is what would be in addition to what’s already existing? It’s it’s getting added on top of what’s already in the background, because it’s coming from the concert venue, correct?
Correct. So they’re taking the correct approach that you would measure the existing level. And then we would take the predicted level and put those two together. As part of our report, we didn’t go out and measure any existing levels. I don’t know if that 53.7 number is accurate. But assuming that that’s the actual level, this would be the correct approach would be to add the two together. Some noise codes will take the background noise level into account. Say for instance, a typical nighttime level as you have there is 50 DBA. And maybe you’re near a busy street. And the average level even at night is 54. So the existing macro level exceeds the code so they’ll say, Okay, we have an exception Instead of 50 being the limit, it’s going to be whatever the existing background is you can’t exceed that. So then you’d have to try to do some measurements with whatever the sound sources. If you have a nightclub or a music venue or something, you would have to try and measure with them without that source on and see what the difference or the increases when you create that sound relative to the existing background. Okay,
so, part of our goal tonight is to make a determination on what the effect of this concert venue would be on the wildlife. Unfortunately, it appears that the change in decibel level numbers here are incorrect. Um, what I would like to do is Brian, could you bring up a website I think you can share the screen
And it’s a website called noise tools. dotnet in OISETO Ls dotnet. Alright, bear with me for a second or third. Now I appreciate you doing the screen sharing because I’ll try to get my computer to work better next time.
I’ll chair Can you repeat that address noise?
Yeah, noise tools dotnet.
I’ve got it for you.
Oh, thank you, Susan.
We can’t do these meetings without Susan and Jane and Heather. So, okay, could you click on the decibel calculator? And that’ll take us to that. The nice thing that I found on this site is that it shows us the formula and we can ask Mr. C, if things are Looking correct on given his engineering background? So, Susan, could you do the first calculation, which is 53.7
equals, down at the bottom, you can see the formula that they use, which is 10 times log 10 of 10 to the 57.3 divided by 10 plus 10 to the 59 divided by 10. Mr. seap. Does that look like the correct formula for adding decimals?
Yes, that’s correct.
Okay, so the result is actually 60.1.
So, if we do the next, which is 55.4. Yeah, Susan, don’t don’t hit clear. It’ll actually show us all of them once we get them all done. 55.4 plus 57
sorry 50. Let’s start over.
So that first one was 55.44
That’s 59.3. Okay, let’s do another one, which is part of their table two which is 61.9 plus the predicted of 68 which is 69 decibels. And then the last one is 61.8 plus 66.
Yeah, which is 67.4.
So, from those results, you then subtract the existing DBA To find what the changes. So on the first one, just simple math 60.1 minus 53.7 is 6.4. It’s a difference of 6.4 decibels. The second one I want, I’ll spare, you know, spelling it all out that I looked at this earlier, is 3.9. The second one, the third one is a difference of 7.1 decibels. The fourth one is a difference of 5.6 decibels.
if we look at the pinion report, it says for perspective, an increase of three decibels is barely perceptible to the human ear. In general, wildlife are more sensitive to noise increases than humans as they have a greater ocular dependency for survival and meeting purposes. I won’t get into the fact that ocular refers to vision instead of hearing However, an increase of 1.8 DBA and 1.8 dBc is not considered to have a high potential to disturb wildlife. But we can see that the difference is actually 6.4 3.9 7.1 and 5.6. So, let me turn to our wildlife experts from the city.
Mr. Woolford I believe that’s you
with decimal differences that are this large because is six decibel difference from my understanding is a four times increase in sound pressure levels. Mr. seap. Am I correct about that? Six decibels is four times the amount of sound.
It depends on if you’re measuring power or pressure, but yeah, I think that is
okay. So, Mr. Wolford, would you change your analysis of this proposal based on what we now know are the correct differences in decibels?
Have you put me on a hot box? Hmm. All right. I’m certainly not an acoustic engineer or familiar with the decibel levels, but based on the
written text here, I certainly would. Okay.
So would you need more time to evaluate the effect of these decibel levels on on, on wildlife? I mean, part of another issue with this report is that there is no proof to their final assessment that the deltas of 1.8 which we now know are actually greater, but there’s no proof that they that they they show how badly wildlife are affected by decibel level changes on so they’ve not proven their case on but um I would assume that that we would either a as a commission we would possibly deny this tonight because it fails to meet review criteria of proving that it doesn’t affect wildlife or we perhaps give the applicant an opportunity to postpone to a date certain.
to the commission. Mmm
there’s more we can look at, such as traffic
Are there more questions about the noise levels?
Okay, there I go off you, Brian. Um, I just do have a question because undercover 10 2100 section A, it refers to amplified sound as defined in Section 1330 7020 which we don’t have access to. And I agree with I think it was Commissioner height that section A really doesn’t seem to make a lot of sense because all the any amplified sound is 25 feet. That’s any kind of amplified sound. And that’s for a public so really, you’re saying no public event can really be amplified, which doesn’t make sense, but can you dig up what that definition of amplifies Is it 1330 7020?
I’m checking on it right now.
What was the what was the code citation? There, Teresa, go ahead.
I’m sorry to interrupt but I have that available if that would be helpful.
So it’s section 13 point 37.0 to zero, which defines amplified sound to mean sound that is broadcast with the utilization of an amplification device to increase the volume.
And to me, I mean even without getting into the decibel levels,
reading that one that section A the way I read it Kind of just it. This this you cannot meet that with any kind of amplification.
So I’m kind of even just stuck with just that one section, let alone all the the discussion regarding decibel levels. So that’s that’s kind of where I’m at right now, unfortunately.
Um, just just a point of order, Susan. I don’t see Commissioner on run. I’m here. Oh, you’re there. Okay. All right. You just you just hadn’t popped up. Yeah, I was locked out for a moment and I’ll be back. Okay. All right. Just wanted to make sure if you had your hand up, I wasn’t missing him on.
there’s something else I’d like to look at. Oh, Commissioner. Hi, go ahead. I’ve used enough air so far. Oh,
yeah, I think, um, go ahead.
Commercial right. Let’s defer to city attorney tape. I think she might have something to the commercial pawn point.
Can you hear me? Yes. Great. So I’m sure you’re not commissioners.
Part of what you’re charged with is evaluating the evidence before you. So any independent evidence that is presented here today
that is not contained in the packet for example, calculations that are done by the commission would would not be evidence that that is necessarily the sound but certainly could go to the accuracy of the information or supports or reports provided
and can To the validity of those
Yeah, that was observation I was gonna share to the shirt your neck your your analysis is is informative but it messenger was necessarily in front of us and that’s for sure it’s necessarily appropriate that we consider it even though
pretty darn compelling.
Be that as it may I think we heard from Mr.
I’m sorry, Don Wolford.
Fit he might change his opinion based upon some of this information. I also like Commissioner Cohen, though, have a problem with this Sound issues and the fact that this
as presented with the evidence that has been presented can’t meet
the appropriate standards. And so I think I might make a motion in thinking about making this motion and and which is to offer the app even though they could meet the standards for variance, but they might, the applicant with this set of circumstances needs to get around the sound standards that it that it can’t meet. And maybe Mr. Wilde said l want to think about either redesigning their project or seeking a variance from these noise standards, because I don’t know if it’s necessary for us to go further. And look at the other issues which there are quite a few more to talk about. Rather than have us deny this thing in require him to come back a year later.
I throw that out for discussion.
I’m kind of torn apart on this issue.
I really like the idea of
having these kind of events and centers to take place on December in corridor because Sam brain corridor is not just a recreational or wildlife corridor, it is the backbone of the town. And there has been so much so many investments done and as such, in terms of the land use, the more diverse we can make that corridor, the more it’s going to be open to everybody in the city. Not just for Bob, I feel so
to me as a man your strategy it’s exciting tend to accommodate as much as possible
public events. In this particular case, it’s a private
land. However, noise is an issue. I mean, I’m kind of going back and forth. You know, I live two blocks away from the railroads and I hear a lot and we’re able to get on the train goes through the corridor. And that’s kind of the highest noise level you can get in the city. And with that, you know, and I also understand, you know, some when there’s an event, I happen to be close to Main Street under Roosevelt Park, we get that knowledge as well. But at the end of the day, you know,
I kind of understand the way the city operates if there’s no complaining, you
communicate and take control. So
I feel kind of, you know, here’s a business has been in the city for so long and contributed the community, like so many ways, denying an application like this doesn’t feel right to me. And especially because we’re struggling with some
I don’t know how realistic of the regulations, but you know, in terms of the surrounding.
If there’s going to be any concept or so that’s the place to have it. I mean, just looking at all around, if you’re having in the middle of Main Street where, you know, blocks away or is natural, or we’re having these events in the parks, in the middle of residential neighborhoods. I kind of scratched my head, why not in that particular location?
I mean, I’m asking this question to Brian, and the You know, maybe
attorney tape as well that is there any way we can have a condition
you know, at least up to 10pm in the evening that
the concepts need to either follow 55
or in any complaint that they need to be canceled or something like that that is a language that is a condition and we approve this with that particular condition and you know, I’m sure the owners are very aware of the fact that you know, this is going to be a contentious issues but I really don’t see that as a ground for denying this.
That’s my personal opinion.
I’ll just chime in to your point Commissioner on around about are there locations that are appropriate for concerts, I would argue that those are mapped out on our, on our land use map as civic zones. So like the museum and that area around there. That’s why everything else is a special, special use permit for Roosevelt Park and you know, downtown, etc. But we already know we’ve already decided where the appropriate zones are, and are on our map.
So there, let me bring up one other topic on because I think it It applies also to someone’s Commissioner on arounds points, about the compatibility of of these sorts of events happening This location, this particular location along the river. Brian, again, little little screen sharing for me.
Let’s see, it would be
it’s in the project narrative attachment to
this Taylor’s report to us page five.
Alright, I’m getting there. Sure.
Brian, if you prefer I have it up.
that’s fine. I’ve got it right now.
page five to seven, page five, where she lists the project number of or the projected number of events per year. Right. Um, so in Miss Taylor’s presentation, she made it clear that these events would happen May through October on. So in the last bullet point for each one of these numbers, she indicates what the percentages of the entire year. But in her presentation, she made it clear that it’s it’s not the entire year it’s made of October, it’s the warm months and that’s actually been stated elsewhere as well. In fact, even the traffic study, the traffic engineer, said that he was basing his traffic study on two to three events per month. So if we look at their numbers for 2022, just the number for concerts, is 17. But you divide that across six months and you’re looking at about three events per month on and you look at Total number of events 31. Well, if you divide that by six months, that’s five events per month or per divide by six, yes, five, five per per month. So what I’m getting at is that if we look at these numbers here that Miss Taylor’s provided us it’s the intensity of the use on is the intensity of that many shows appropriate for the site. Should the neighborhood should the residence of the mobile home park to the south and possibly the residents to to the north and bongs farm and to the north northwest. Should they be subject approximately once every weekend to potentially noise that they have to call the police to complain about
so Brian, thanks for sharing that. Well.
I’m looking to see if any commissioners held their hands up
for discussion, thoughts.
Personally, I think the and I take our attorney, Tate’s point to heart that, even though we did some calculations with the decibels decibel levels. That was those are not necessarily numbers that we can consider at this at this time because they’re not in in the packet of they were done ad hoc during this meeting.
the point is that what is presented in front of us does not prove They made the review criteria not at this time. So, I will make a motion to approve PCR to 2020 to 21 for PCR number two approve PCR 2020 dash four c, which is the PCR that would deny this proposal it does not meet the review criteria, given the facts that are in front of us with what they presented to us.
Sorry, cheering This is that the applicant? Do we have a chance to respond to the discussion?
Um, if I if one of us calls on you,
Or do we will we have a chance to respond before the motion?
Not necessarily only if somebody calls on you Okay,
I’d like to ask attorney Tate
is it appropriate to ask the suppose premier to move to do so. But is it appropriate to inquire of the advocate whether or not possibly seen writing on the wall that it might want to withdraw its application? Or is this a yes, no, or yes with conditions circumstance?
Castro night Commissioner height, there is a motion on the table. And so given that there’s a motion on the table, I believe you would need to act on that first. As far as whether it would be appropriate to give the applicant an opportunity to withdraw their application. I’m afraid I haven’t looked at that specifically. I do believe that the matter is before the commission for a decision this evening.
It certainly you can only decide matters that are before you. And so, if there is more discussion to be had, I will, I will see what I can find in the land development code about withdrawing an application.
Fair enough. I appreciate that. I also appreciate this concept, the applications or the applicants depth and breadth of its attempt to make this thing happen, I believe it otherwise would be appropriate was located. Unfortunately, it doesn’t meet the town’s code with respect to the sound requirements, which you might argue, need to be looked at, somewhat seriously, but 15.0 2.0551, which requires that Yeah, any of these, the general view conditions that the application is consistent with the comp plan, etc. and complies with all applicable statutes, codes, ordinances and regulations, this, this proposal doesn’t meet the town’s sound code. And I don’t see how we can vote for
I guess I would actually like to hear from the applicant, maybe as well, from from Brian Schumacher, the town to see, was it their interpretation or their impression that this application wouldn’t be able to meet the sound code? And if so, I guess how did it get so far to this point, you know, through all those meetings with the DRC
was it Are we interpreting the code differently?
You know, what, what happened to get it this far? To come to this point and not you know, without any
It doesn’t look like we’re even close to meeting that 55 everywhere.
Yeah, thank you, Commissioner.
So this is Mary the applicant team. The way that the code was interpreted by us as well as the discussions that we had with the city of Longmont staff was that the the, the DBA levels were based on the zoning. So for example, we would meet 55 DBA at any sir any residence, but also 75 DBA at any industrial so we’re in the industrial area, the surrounding properties is an industrial area. So that’s why we, we have moved forward with saying that we are meeting the land use code because that’s the way that we interpreted it. And then also that we were not planning on having any any events after 10pm. So we would be within that daylight hours.
Does that make sense?
So I guess it really just comes down to the the issue of what zone you’re in and what sound levels apply you interpreted that whatever zone you’re in. That’s the level that applies. It seems like at this hearing, we’ve come to the conclusion that the lowest threshold applies, regardless of the zone that you’re in. Yeah, and that’s, that’s not the way that we had interpreted and discussed it with planning staff. So we, you know, we’re under the impression that we were meeting those numbers were applicable based on based on those zones. And then also, I mean, if we’re, even if they’re, if we were say, we weren’t needed needing to meet 55 DBA. You know at Bowens circle, we’re at 57. Or and then down the street were at 56. At the property just to the east, which left hand, left hand owns were at 62. So we’re not really not far off from where we need to be. And maybe that can be achieved in the type of speakers that we use. Maybe we explore using more directional speakers. In this model, we’re using kind of the standard stack speakers that you would see on a temporary stage, but we have discussed with the ownership group, you know, we would maybe want to use directional a type of directional speaker which would help those numbers even more so. And then we’re at 58 on the left hand side, on our property on the river, so we’re really close and on those spots, even if we were having to meet that 55 DBA. And then with regard to two Sure, next question on the number of events, what you presented here, do you see that as a minimum to make this this business model Mark work? Um, is there flexibility in reducing the the amount of events that you have? So, um, you know, we we didn’t really see there is nothing in the land use code visible to us that states there is a restriction on those amounts. So what we’ve what we’ve predicted and discussed with the management group, seems appropriate to make this space feasible from a financial standpoint, as well as, you know, an operational standpoint. So, yeah, we were using those numbers based on on the business model. And we don’t see anything in the lanius code stating that there’s that restriction
I’d love to speak. Oh sorry, Mr. Walz. Yeah, it seems that
we’ve been working on this for a couple of years and talking with everyone from the city manager on down through staff. And we’ve changed the interpretation of the, of the sound code. Here during the meeting from what we’ve guidance that we’ve received. We have, we have changed our plans so many times, we have modeled it so many times to comply with what we were told. And now, you’re considering denying an application for a piece of our proposal that is a small minority of what we’re actually planning to do, which is a beer garden and rented out rented out for some private parties and perhaps for chili cook off or yoga or a movie or Whatever. And I really think that
and not allowing us to even address these cross interpretations by two different pieces of the city is really not a fair way to do this. We’ve been trying to get this in front of pNz. for quite a long time. We’ve been delayed by the review process itself, we’ve been delayed by COVID. And if you’re going to deny this, you really I think, should consider at least allowing us to do some additional research. We’ve been here for two and a half hours, thank you for your time. And rather than kill it and have a start the whole thing over we’re 300 K, and we’re private business. We part of many of those events that you’re you’re questioning whether they comply or not, are fundraisers for local nonprofits. So you all know who we are. You all know what we do. There’s nothing nefarious going on here. And if we’re hung up over an interpretation of a technical requirement, then give us the chance to get some clarity on this and table it until we can come back and actually, you know, re consult and get one part of the city agreeing with the other part of the city, rather than catching us in the middle. That’s what I would ask.
Thank you, Mr. Wallace. Commissioner Koehler
I guess can Brian Can you speak a little more to the the city’s interpretation of the of the sound code? And then also, my follow up question would be really to anyone who could answer it.
what would be the precise process if we wanted to approve their application, but require that they get a separate permit, and I’m not sure what permit that would be for each music venue. Music event.
So to respond to your your first question, as we kind of talked towards the beginning of the deliberation by the Commission and Commissioner heights question about this particular standard about amplified noise, typically that’s been interpreted or been enforced based on a complaint basis, as opposed to, you know, staff going around and measuring events, if that we get it in the event, if we get a complaint based on amplified sound, then we approach the, the venue that’s having that event and ask them to address the complaints associated with that. You know, I I know that there’s some questions of whether or not that’s an appropriate standard and that’s obviously that’s something we’d have to have a discussion with, with City Council in terms of The question about your question about conditionally approving it.
And that was
with the condition that lefthand would get a basically a special event permit for each event. I mean, I think that’s potentially an option that the Commission could consider as a condition of approval, and it may be kind of related to the, the one of the questions that was posed with respect to whether or not the commission also wanted to consider limiting the number of events as well.
So I guess maybe a follow up to the applicant. Is that something you guys would be able to deal with with having to get a special event permit for any type of music event that would, you know, possibly put you over the noise threshold?
we’ve, we’ve talked to Joanie Marsh and and Harold Domingo’s about this specific topic, we’re limited to 15 event permits per year. on a on a property is my understanding with the state, we’ve used them for other events. We’re very familiar with that process. But the reason we spent so much time modeling this to comply with the code was because that’s an expense. You have to you have to apply it to turn turn the thing on every time. So there’s administrative work, there’s costs to that. And it completely would limit you to the number of those kind of insights that you could have. I mean, the whole approach that we’ve taken is, tell us what the requirement is and will comply with it. We’ve spent over a year figuring out how to comply with the code that I just witnessed, being reinterpreted during this meeting. So, that That, to me is is problematic for us. And there’s a fairness issue. I think that play that you got to give us a chance, if you’re going to change standard give us the chance to come back and work against whatever the standard is, but your standard is different than other parts of the city’s standard. I’d like to go back to Misha Nicola and answer your other question about the business model itself. The primary business model here is renting it out to private groups, but the prime the primary driver is the beer garden itself. You know, if we we can host soccer practice or whatever and parents can sit there and have a beer while they watch their kids practice soccer. It’s it’s the beer garden itself and able to host more people who are coming to our town to visit our brewery. So that’s the primary function we we’ve gotten sideways with an element of of the community. Who keeps calling this thing a concert venue, which is absolutely we have changed it dramatically, to take it away from that and make it something that’s far, you know, a softer use. It’s a green space and an industrial park and trying to turn it into something nice. If any of you were here 27 years ago, and saw what our properties collectively look like, you will see that we have invested millions of dollars in improving them. And that was our intention here to create yet another amenity within our community. So I would encourage you if city council needs to take up the sound ordinance, which I agree as we’ve studied this thing does not explicitly allow something like this, then why don’t you direct council or staff to bring a proposal to council to allow these kind of things to happen in industrial parks like where we are and will comply with the residential limitations, but we’re in an industrial park and 75 Db is that was the limits we’re using in contiguous properties, most of which we already own. So I, I really would ask that you consider if you’re gonna, if you’re going to reject it, at least give us a chance to take it back, do some additional study, consult with city get different elements of the city in agreement before you do? Let us walk down the path and get shot.
So I mean, I guess I agree with that. And now, it doesn’t feel right to me to just reject this on a misinterpretation or just a different, different interpretation, that they’ve been proceeding down for a number of months with the city. You know, to just be, you know, kind of blindsided by this that that doesn’t feel right. I don’t know what the remedy is to that. If it’s to continue This till another time, or if that is to approve it with the condition that they can’t do music venues until this gets worked out. But I don’t feel good about just wholeheartedly denying it when we’re not when no one seems to be completely clear about what that noise interpretation is.
I’m to senior attorney Tate had her hand up looks good to her.
Sure not gonna want to go back and address Commissioner heights question about a withdrawal of an application.
I’m referencing section 15.0 2.040 II withdraw of an application which needs to be in writing. Once a request for withdrawal of an application is from a noticed agenda, which this would be then that is subject to the discretion of the decision making decision making body
if an application is withdrawn, it would appear under the code that it would result in an application being treated as a new application for purposes of review, scheduling and payment.
Okay, so another, we have a motion on the floor. It’s not been seconded. We’re still in discussion about this motion on. But one possible procedure would be to, you know, the commission could consider deciding to postpone the rest of this hearing. To date certain we could adjourn and postponed to a date certain but city attorney tape would we if we did that, with the applicant, be able to provide Different or more additions to the material to the packet that’s in front of us.
cherish your neck. I want to make sure that I understand your question. And I understand the question to be could they supplement the the record the materials that you have before you and supplement the record I had hearing?
Yes, I believe so.
That would not
supersede the information that’s before you now it would be additional information in the hearing that that that then commission could take under consideration.
Okay. Commissioner Hyatt
unmuting is difficult.
So I was gonna ask the question that attorney Cait answered, which was, would it be permissible to follow up on Mr. Wallace’s suggestion that possibly it would be more fair to allow him to, to pull back his application to get this issue squared away? Because I really do c 10 point 20 point 100 point E. When sound can be measured in more than one zone, the most restrictive standard applies, and it appears that the applicant is not working under that protocol at all.
And it is unfortunate that it
comes up in this public hearing that this commission comes to a different standard than what the applicant was, was pursuing. And in that light, I find it like we should call this somewhat manifestly unfair for us to deny
This application at this time
I like the concept of postponing and possibly getting additional information, as opposed to the standard I originally inquired of as to whether or not the application could be pulled from consideration at this time, which appears from attorney Tate’s review to require a whole new application process to be initiated, which I also don’t think is fair under these circumstances. So, I guess my suggestion is whether church or Mac you might want to withdraw your application and we think about continuing this hearing to another time.
Right. I’m having heard all of this discussion. I do agree with Commissioner heightened Commissioner color and also hearing from Miss Taylor and Mr. Wallace that they were working with different interpretations of the code and this might actually fall back to something that needs to be worked out by city staff. You know, for some consistency to Mr. Wallace’s point. So I’m going to withdraw my motion to approve PCR 2020 dash four c, which was the PCR that would deny this.
If we were to make a motion to
to postpone this to a date certain
how far in the future should we go? The applicant was was asking for a two year extension to the to the entitlement anyway. So perhaps we can be generous with the postponement done.
I don burchett. A Chairman fernack.
You know, there is two ways that you could continue this, you could continue with a date certain, as you just mentioned, or we could just continue. The difference for us is that if we just continue it with no, with not a date certain, we would just have to re notice which in this case will allow us to work with the applicant and determine the next available time that they’re ready to come back to the commission. And we would just need to have the two weeks of notice to be able to re post the property and send out the written notices to everybody. Since we’re not certain how long it could take to get the answers that the Commission needs right now. I would probably make a recommendation that the Commission If you’re going to continue it, just continue it, but without a date certain, and then we would just redo our notices at the time when we know that we are ready to come back that way. We don’t have to keep continuing it and coming back to the commission if the project’s not
If you’re done
Let me ask Mr. Wallace and or Miss Taylor on. Would you be okay if if we continue this, as Don suggested with no date specified, even though knowing full well that it would require a re noticing?
Are you okay with that?
I think that that’s a reasonable approach. Noticing is a far less onerous than starting over an entire new application. We’ve been noticing people for tears as I said, we’ve been engaged neighborhoods and in different groups, and in modifying our our plan. So I guess it feels kind of normal for us to take a step back and modify our plans again. But I really would like to encourage you all to think about these conflicts in the code. And if city council has to get involved to modify the code up to address some of these conflicts, that that somehow that happened as well. Because you’re never gonna, you’re never gonna compete with other municipalities that have solved these kind of issues. And it definitely is a hindrance both to our ability to attract more people to our town to visit and to to generate funds for for nonprofits, which we really do believe in and we’re actually pretty good at but I’d be happy to go continued and then re notice once we’ve got all these different bugs worked out, with the with the pandemic on having a happy Having a place where you’ve got a couple hundred people all jammed together is really not in the cards right now. Anyway, so delaying it a few months is not going to change anything massive on our end, and I really appreciate.
Thank you, Mr. Wallace on Miss Commissioner Koehler.
I guess I’d like to hear from some of the commissioners that we haven’t heard from, are we do we feel like we have this nailed down to that it’s primarily a noise issue. Are there other? And, you know, while the applicant is going back and working on this noise interpretation, are there other issues that we might identify that they could deal with at the time or, or maybe help resolve for the next time either? Are there other big topics that people have concerns with?
That’s an excellent question. Thank you for putting that out there because I think it’s fair to the applicant to hear from us what, what some of our analysis has been up to this point. So, Commissioner.
Yes, thank you, Commissioner Sharon, like, I think in the beginning of the presentation, we were also tasked with deciding on the limit of number of events. So I think this will be a good opportunity. If we decide now, this will help the applicant in the future not have to go back to the drawing board if need be. So maybe we should discuss that as well tonight.
I think procedurally we can discuss it, but we cannot decide it until we are at the eventual if we agree to the continuation once we’re down to that point. But, yes, it was in Brian’s report to us, that, that we could put constraints and about the frequency of events and that to be quite transparent about it. That’s one of my There are concerns, especially events with 500 attendees or more or amplified events on if we had been discussing a conditioned PCR, I would have been suggesting that there would be no in the first year that there’d be no more than one amplified event or event with 500 or more per month in the first year of operation that would give the city and the community around the location time to respond and to work out the kinks. Similarly, thinking along those lines
I was also thinking that
the city’s process right now relying on complaints online is perhaps not as strong as it could be. So one condition I was thinking about was possibly that before any amplified event occurred that lefthand would notice. Residents, not the property owners, but the actual residents in say, like a one mile radius, you know, we’d have to work out the details of that on but that would at least give notice to people that hey, something is happening and it’s actually because of this location over here. And then the city could actually collect metrics and you know, based on the feedback that that that did or didn’t come in, on, so that was one thing I was thinking about. Another thing I was thinking of was about the parking. I am concerned about whether there’s enough parking the city seems to think there, there’s an adequate parking. Um, but, and lefthand seems very willing and forward thinking about running shuttles and you know, from outside lots etc. I would want to see those shuttles in that parking to remain free. Because if it’s not free, then it’s an added expense to attend the event. And that may just push parking further out into the neighborhoods that surround lefthand in an unplanned way. So it’s thinking along those lines as well. And then one little details that I would like to see that crosswalk upgraded because I was in the traffic study. And I think the traffic engineers suggestions on that were were reasonable and would really help pedestrians and I know that’s one of your concerns conditional contract. Any other ideas as to what was out there and on commissioners minds about this proposal,
and I was kind of thinking along the same lines as you I thought, at least for the first year, we should limit the number of large events just to try to get an idea for what the community feels like after those, those big events with amplified sound. And just coincidentally, I have kind of the same number in mind, maybe once one event one larger than a month for the first year until the applicant can meet with us and we can review how things went on. And then I also had an issue with the crosswalk. I sort of envision that street being kind of dark and maybe that’s not accurate, but that’s just sort of how I envision it. And you know, after the concert at 10 o’clock, you get some people that’s few drinks. Crossing Boston without some sort of lit crosswalk seems a little dangerous, maybe even one of those flashing signs that you know, whenever someone’s in the crosswalk, it’s it’s blinking There’s something to that effect. I thought it would be beneficial.
Yes, thank you. I agree with a crosswalk, it can be updated with some beacons, especially at night at 10pm. When people are leaving, it will be hard, you know, they will not have reflective gear when you go to a concert. Right. So it is expected for the traffic for the cars to pay attention to so maybe we can have some beacons, I don’t know on the on that road, if there is street lighting and maybe that could be improved as well. And also related to traffic. I didn’t see if there was any any pull off for or pull in for drop offs, you know, where’s the shuttle going to drop off? People? Is it going to stop the traffic when it stops in front of the venue? And we also have rideshare all over you know, Lyft or Uber. Where are they going to pull To pick up or where are people going to wait for that? So that was something on my mind. And generally I don’t like the the approach of you know, cities of tattletale will will let people complain about it, I think we should have a more proactive approach. And if we know that something could happen, like, go over the limits, then maybe we should put a plan in place. Maybe for the first year after every or at every event or every other event. There will be some measurement done by either the city or a third party.
So having a plan for making sure they comply with with a sound commission
I had not thought about the number of events, the number of events being an issue.
interested to hear, cherish your neck and Commissioner combers ideas about testing out and see how it works in the neighborhood. The problem I have with that, though, is you know, how do we how do we take that back and control it in future events, which means that you have to build into that remedy, an ability to tailor up or tailor down somehow and that seems complicated. My other observations that I would share and possibly staff could address this now but I don’t know how much staff we have left. The water treatment detention pond appears to me to be built in the riparian zone or to be an improvement in the riparian zone. I don’t know how we treat wastewater detention ponds in those situation. Is that really a construction in the riparian zone and how do we address that? Secondly, additional environmental concerns there was a 2013 sampling done of the groundwater in the area. I guess it’s kind of close to this south west corner of the property that found try and tetra ethylene to try and tetra core ethylene in the groundwater, indicating that possibly some additional sampling should be done. Was there anything you ever found out with that? Was there any remediation done was any additional sampling done? As a question I have, then? Possibly the city did some sampling along this area where they’re reserving St. drains storage, or staging area is going to take place, which found elevated levels of mercury. I was wondering how that was going to be addressed, if at all. Then finally, the request for an extension to possibly a two year time period on this on this permit if it’s granted, I think it’s premature. I believe that there are processes in our code that allow for an extension to be applied for and considered and granted if necessary at the time that issue arises. So those are my other observations on the overall application. Thanks.
I’ll just chime in a few more thoughts as well. Frankly, as you might have been able to tell, I was disappointed with the environmental report with the noise assessment.
And I was
hoping that our city staff would have Really checked through the logic that the consultant or actually the illogic that the consultant had in their report saying that that the sound levels did not affect wildlife. When we’re this close to the river, we do need to pay attention to what the effect is on migrating wildlife. The folks at left hand, understand that unfortunately, they got a flawed report from their consultant. City didn’t catch this.
That’s why we have
community boards like planning and zoning were kind of the last line of defense on for some things. But I, as things move forward with this, if we go with a continuation, I would like to see a higher level of analysis come from city staff. We’re only going to see more and more applications coming in to us. Along the same brain, we’re purposely trying to redevelop this area. Mr. Wallace is leading the charge in this, um, you know, we need to step up and and really look carefully at what is coming in the packet to us on staff does a great job. I’m not, you know, complaining about the city staff, but we do need to catch details, especially like math. Um
another thing too is
to some of the points Mr. Wallace made.
I don’t think I’ll speak for myself, but
lefthand is a fabulous company. They do great things. But those aren’t our criteria upon which we make decisions. criteria are explained in our code and our packet what comes in front of us what is presented to us by the consultants that that the applicant hires needs to prove to us that the criteria has been met. So, putting forward a motion to deny this is in no way any reflection on the quality of left hand brewing as a company. It’s it is reflection on the quality of what was in front of us proving that the criteria are met. So any motion for a continuance of some type commercial poll?
I move that we move this to a date uncertain, we continue this to date them certain.
Okay, so we have a motion to Continue with no certain date Commissioner height.
Will second that motion.
Okay seconded by Commissioner hight. Those in favor, raise your hand and say aye.
Aye. Aye. Hi.
Any opposed? I don’t see any chain that passes unanimously to continue this item with no date certain. That’s a six zero unanimous vote to everybody who attended on behalf of the applicant and to Mr. Wallace and Miss Taylor. Thank you very much for being here and helping us through this on. Thank you, Brian, for your presentation and also helping us through this. And we have a little bit more of our agenda to get through. So okay, oh, I have a Oh, we don’t have an appeal notice because we continued it. Nevermind.
next item on our agenda is our final call for the public invited to be heard on. So, Susan, yes, thank you for putting that on the screen. If somebody in the public would like to speak about something at this time, please call 186699006833. When prompted, enter the meeting id 83087295123. So it’s 1-669-900-6833 enter the id 83087295123. We need five minutes to do this process. So we’ll take a five minute break.
Jaron, I’m about ready to
stop sharing my screen
if everyone would like to get back on camera
Okay, thank you
At the moment, I see no one and Jane is telling me there is no one at the Civic Center.
Okay, all right. Um, so we have nobody who wanted to speak at the final public invited to be heard. So we’ll close that. Um, items from the commission. Anything from any commissioners?
Commissioner look at.
Thank you, Commissioner. Sure. Nick. I have a question. And maybe it’s for the planning manager, Don bershad. Or maybe for the commission. What, what are we expecting to see considering COVID? Like we had now we were considering an extension. Are we going to see more extensions bring brought to us or is there some state mandate that will, you know, override something for a certain period of time Where Where are we? How does the future look like, which I know it’s uncertain. But do we have a plan if that comes to us?
So, commissioners, I think that what we saw tonight with the request for the pension is really related more to the type of venue that that is then something related to construction or any other restrictions. So, our other development applications that are going through right now have not expressed any of the concerns with timing of expanding a lot of money to start their construction. Because they’re they’re not foreseen that the restrictions are going to prevent them from operating their business or or starting their, their projects, whether that be residential development, or commercial or any kind of other industrial or light industrial development. So I don’t really expect to see many Have those requests coming through with our current development applications in, we’ve had a few that have slowed down with the COVID situation right now. But most of the people that are in our system are really in a hurry to try to get out of our system and get under construction as soon as possible. Just because I think they want to try to, you know, use that investment that they’ve made already, in some cases for you know, a year or more in our process and start getting the construction under construction so that they can actually see some return on the investment that they’ve made. So, you know, we are we are constantly being asked if we can speed things up and get things through quicker. But as the mission may not know, we’re we’re down currently three planners, on our staff right now. So we only have two and a half people that are able to do development review with 40 plus projects going Through our system, so we’re we’re kind of feeling that a little bit too.
Thank you, Don. I just like to mention that it was in the news last week that Allen Ginsburg, who was the developer who redeveloped the Twin Peaks mall here in Longmont, he passed away. And some of us have been with planning and zoning and of course, the city staff had some numerous interactions with him as that project was going on. So I just wanted to extend my deepest condolences to his family. He was instrumental in redeveloping our mall here in Longmont.
Anything else from the commission?
Do we have our council representative here? I don’t believe we do. So any items from Tom burchett Planning manager.
Chairman Yes, just update. So in August right now, we are going to have a meeting in August. But that meeting is going to be held on the second meeting date, which is August 26. And the August 19 meeting will not happen. So we are we are looking at August 26. So, for your scheduling and letting Jane know your availability, that is what we are currently working on is preparing those applications for the 26th meeting. And that’s all that I had today.
Great. Thank you, Don. Thank you, everybody, for all your work tonight. And if I don’t see any objections, we can adjourn. Okay,
Hi, thanks. Thanks.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai