 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 call to order. Sorry, roll call. Great. Thank you. Commissioner height. Commissioner Kohler. Here. Commissioner Poland. Here. Chairman Churnick. Here. Commissioner. Here. Commissioner on Iran. Here. Okay. Next is communications from planning manager, Don Berkshire. Don, you need to unmute. 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, we'll need to watch the live stream 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. Please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. That's all that I have, chairman. 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 the commission, please remember to mute the live stream when you are called upon to speak. That's all that I have, chairman. Thank you very much. Next on our agenda is public invited to be heard. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Next on our agenda is public invited to speak to the commission about that. Just as Don Bridget said, you'll get five minutes. So. You would call phone number one, six, six, nine. Nine, zero, zero. Six, eight, three, three. And then enter the meeting ID. Eight, three, zero. Eight, seven, two, nine. Five, one, two, three. 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. All right, chair. I'm going to come back in and stop the show. So that it will. Eventually disappear from the live stream 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. All right. So we have nobody for the public invited to be heard. I'll close that. Next on our agenda is approval of our June 24, 2020, regular meeting minutes. Is there any discussion amongst the commission? About those minutes. Are there any motions to approve the minutes? I can't. Let's see. I need to get into it. Oh, commissioner Poland. Sorry. I was in, I wasn't in gallery view. I couldn't see you. I moved it. 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 seconded motion to approve our minutes. Those in favor say, I raise your hand. Aye. Aye. Those opposed. Say nay. Any abstentions for anybody who was not present. Okay. So. Jane, we have. 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 seconded motion to approve our minutes. Those in favor say, I raise your hand. Aye. Aye. 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, PZR 2020-4 with principal planner, Brian Schumacher. Brian. The floor is yours. Thank you. Chairman Churnach and commissioners, Brian Schumacher with planning development services. We're here this evening to present and discuss the left hand brewing company, your garden 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 there 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 who've looked through the packet materials, obviously there's a lot of detailed information that are included in the communication of all the attachments that are posted on the city webpage for the plan zoning commission. So any members of the public are interested in seeing additional information regarding the proposal. They can look at the information posted on the webpage. In addition to my presentation, the applicant will 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, infrastructure resources, and fire. So Cameron and Chris can help to address questions related to utilities, drainage, and streets. Josh has been working on the resilient same brain project. So if you have questions regarding the flood mitigation work and the resilient same brain project, Josh can help respond to questions regarding that. Caroline is available to respond to any questions you might have regarding traffic. And then Michelle and Amy are here from fire. If you have any questions about emergency response or hazardous materials. Next slide, please. So this slide provides a brief description of the property location. So we've got two properties here, 1245 and 1265 Boston Avenue. 1265 Boston Avenue. 1265 Boston Avenue. 1265 Boston Avenue is the existing brewery facility. 1245 is the proposed beer garden expansion location. Both the properties in the surrounding area, except to the south of St. Brain Creek or zone mixed use employment. This property is adjacent to St. Brain Creek and the greenway. And as I mentioned before, there are plan flood mitigation work with the resilient same brain project. And also noted in the last slide, there is a residential area south of St. Brain. There are 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. A description of the proposal regarding. As part of their presentation. So it's included in the packet. This is kind of an overall. Illustrative plan of what's being proposed with this beer garden expansion. This is a conditional use site plan for the proposed beer garden expansion of the existing left hand brewery. So this includes the lawn area with enhanced landscaping. There's not bar structure and seating areas. Also in the additional indoor bathroom facilities. And then an events venue with temporary stage. Next slide, please. So the neighborhood of St. Brain 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, the application was formally submitted last summer. And when the applications were submitted, notices were sent out to surrounding property owners. 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 it also included in the packet was a 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 that are provided in support from the public for this proposal. And this information and the 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 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. The June 24th 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 of the proposal. And I'm 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 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 applicant's 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 PZ 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 were included in the packet as well as the plan zoning commission resolution for B. And staff is happy to discuss those conditions with the commission if you have questions regarding them. So in addition to the conditions listed in the PZR for B, there are a couple of 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 as 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 time frame by which the applicant needs to get a building permit and start construction. This request would 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, independent upon social distancing and gathering restrictions left hand 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 Mills studio will start the presentation. And I think Eric Wallace was also planning to make some remarks. Also in attendance this evening, I believe our representatives from in addition to left hand brewing company, the commission can ask questions of the applicant and staff. Or if they decide that they prefer to open the public hearing that we can do that. And then ask questions for the applicant and staff. So thank you. Thank you, Brian. Miss Taylor. Would you like to do your presentation now, please? Yeah, sure. Do you want me to share my screen or are you. I can get your presentation up when you're here. 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 just to introduce what we've been working on. I'm Eric Wallace. I'm the president and found co-founder of left hand brewing company. We've been, we've been here on Boston Avenue for 27 years now. Chying to get this project started. 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 our focus on improving and investing in our local community. The, this beer garden isn't an idea that's kind of been just creating 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 significantly modified our plans. We've also created 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 when we took over from the Longmont, Symphony Guild, October fest 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, in the park expense that we can fit down here at the brewery. We'd really prefer to be at, at the brewery. The getting, getting to this point so far has been, like I said, you know, just sitting for a decade and we've been working on it a little more seriously for a couple of years. We spent $300,000 so far to, to get through the design and the planning and all of that. And then undertaking the demolition of all the buildings and doing all of the environmental mitigation that was required as well. So we've taken a lot of time and an awful lot of our money to, to get to this point. And 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 and 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 straight. 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 and 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 going to hand it over to Mary. She'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 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 of Boston Avenue. The property, our 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 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 top room. 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. There were some existing buildings on site that have been through asbestos 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 demoed it per all city and state regulations. So before, before the, before the abatement happened, we did have a couple of 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 is looking good so far. Next slide please. We've had two neighborhood meetings for this particular property. One was on April 8th, 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. Marine 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 30th, 2019 was a completely different concept. That was getting out of the riparian 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 30th meeting, the big takeaways were events, noise and light. How do people access this space? Is it available for rental? You know, what are the environmental impacts on the St. Marine Creek? And lastly, how is parking going to be handled? So those were the main things that we've heard and have been talking about. So we really wanted to talk about this process 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 parent setback. Like I mentioned. When we first started the project. This plan is, is pretty different. So we have no structures being proposed in the right parent setback in the St. Marine 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 parent setback. And we are not doing any sort of development in that. Kind of Southern portion below that existing service drive. Next slide, please. So to expand on kind of what we're looking at for the context is actually the resilient St. Marine 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. Marine Corridor. 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. Of the St. Marine Corridor and the bike way. So we don't have any plans shown here. But essentially that whole area is going to be dropped about eight miles away from the city of Longmont. And that's 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. Marine through the city of Longmont. 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 make sure that they have the land that they need to complete that project. So that whole habitat there is going to actually be ripped up. And renovated. And improved. Just along the, the perimeter of our property. And lastly, with that project with the resilient St. Brain. A berm of earthwork. Berm is going to kind of align. The southern part of our property along the perimeter. And then we're going to have to make sure that the land is in the same frame between anything that might be happening on our property with the St. Marine bikeway in the St. Marine 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. So, I'll just go through the design and then I'll go into some of the specific design features. Also, just to get a little bit more into the, the, the artificial lawn open space there in the middle that. That 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 farmer's market or a musical act or just relaxing. 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 along 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 landscape 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. And the other part 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 an 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. 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, 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. We have some additional restrooms, which is kind of in the southeast 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 1010 10 fixtures men and women restrooms to accommodate any sort of event that may be happening here but also, you know, as we know what 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 and that that's an existing parking lot owned by left hand that's used by left left hand operations now so we'll restripe that we've got that graded so we have all of the elevations there, 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 away. Right now the sidewalk isn't in the greatest condition so we plan on reconstructing that right away the sidewalk ADA ramp and kind of creating this entry feature with the left hand symbol in the concrete and 10 bike racks to accommodate 20 bikes there because there's no bike parking on site so we wanted to accommodate some additional cyclists maybe coming up 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 where it's an open lot that is used for parking. So that will accommodate visitors and patrons coming to this space or to the top room next door. And lastly, our water quality will be taken care of from the 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 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 the 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. So 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. 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. So what 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. Please. So here's where we are in our proposed condition, as you can see in the slide before we have that temporary stage up along Boston Avenue. We've created a larger buffer on 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've 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 same brain 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 Saint 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 we're at 34 and 40 DBA, you know that somewhere between wrestling 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 five feet above ground so about an average human ear level. And we have calculated some numbers at other heights and we'll address that shortly but that's what these numbers are. So some things that we were what were suggested by our noise specialist, and as well as the land use code for operational logistics, based on these numbers would be, you know, all shows to end by 10pm are, which is set forth in land use code. So that's our plan is that no shows go past 10pm so we're meeting those requirements. Next is to monitor the sound at the perimeter of the property during those events, which is what left hand 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 ARCA thought which is local in Longmont and they'll be able to help with with that monitoring. And then, lastly, we're, we're really doing everything that we can to abide by that land use code section about maximum permissible sound pressure level 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. I would say that we have done is habitat considerations, and that can be found in our habitat conservation study in our submittal, but we just want to kind of highlight the main points here. So first that study was done by opinion environmental or biologist environmental engineers. And basically what the conclusions were 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. It's 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's really not much going on. Our project is out of the same, the same brain corridor and the riparian setback so you know we're we're good to go there we don't have any structures in those areas. And the impact of resilient St. Brain that's that city of Longmont project that will be happening in that light blue area, the approximate renovation extents 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. As I said we're improving the 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 entire project so along the entire perimeter. So the measures are small trees from our 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 and the habitat conservation plan. So, 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. These locations identified in the noise 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 and 13 feet above ground and the reason for that being, it's more likely for say birds migrating to be higher than a human so we wanted to look at 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. And 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. 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 and that delta is only 1.8 for dba and dbc. So the bottom line of this slide is that we just want to show that there is no anticipated disturbance based on the all of the data that we have gathered. 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. We've done a vegetated area with plantings by 37% increase the overall landscape, including that artificial lawn by 69% currently there's 0% landscape on the site, keeping construction activities no normal daylight hours, a six foot high cedar privacy fencing along the entire perimeter of the site, as you can see it's in that kind of yellow dotted line. We've coordinated with the resilience 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 what are quality drainage things like that. A berm along the entire southern edge of the property that will be actually incorporated into the resilience St. Brain project. We have 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 proper erosion control during construction activities, 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. A sound 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 levels so we did do that. And lastly understand the existing sound levels and compared to the proposed sound levels so what is that overall change and we just talked about that. Next slide please. So lastly, 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. We're 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 an additional 80 parking lot. Those eight spaces including being accessible. Cedar six foot high Cedar privacy fence along the perimeter for access and safety and we've already worked with the fire department on where their access points knocks 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 in case that might come about an additional crosswalk at Boston Avenue and active sound monitoring during events. 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 talk to over could be musical acts. So, for those in community events such as farmers markets or, you know, whatever yoga in the park. It's flexible. 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. Next slide please. 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 DBA levels. Protection of river streams wetlands and riparian areas weren't 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 qualified scientists 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 scientists has prepared all of those plans. After 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 standards 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. In the interest of, because we have these five minute delays to get people in and out of the public hearings. I'd like to hold questions from the commission and just go straight to the public hearing so that our public members are not waiting excessively long. So, we will go to the public hearing part of this item. 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. Please dial 1-669-900-6833 and when prompted enter the meeting ID of 830-8729-5123. 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 going to take this slide down shortly if you guys want to come back in and show your video. 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? One, two, three, five. Where's my, where's my sixth one? If commissioner height is here, turn on your video. I'm going to go ahead and let our guests in. Okay. And then we're going to lock the meeting. Okay. Hello, we've let two people in through our conversation. The first guest I'm going to unmute your caller 452. 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. The first guest I'm going to unmute your caller 452. Your phone number. Hi, my name is Sherry Melloy. Can you hear me? Yes, we can. Go ahead. Okay. Thanks. Sherry Melloy 2113 range view 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. Left hand 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 residents of the same frame mobile home community directly across same frame creek from left hand brewery. The state's location is at the south end of the property, suggesting the sound will be projected north. Common sense dictates that loud sounds will be heard in all directions, especially over water. And open areas. Mobile homes are not usually well equipped to mitigate sound. This is a social justice issue. Of the 174 names on the city's notification list. 124 addresses were in the same frame mobile home community. And 93 had Latino surnames. I doubt you've heard from many of the 136 households in this community. Hopefully, as all our hearts have been pierced with beginning awareness concerning disadvantaged and marble marginalized members of our country. And our own along my 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 especially adversely affected by lights and noise. While the events are set to be finished at 10 p.m. This will still negatively impact wildlife in this whole area. The impact to the riparian habitat in Crete health is unknown at this time. It doesn't stop at the 150 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. End 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 coroner's request. As you are well aware, development and construction projects have preceded right 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 any time extended. Thank you for your time and service. Thank you, Ms. Milloy. These are denied as proposed by this time. All right, Susan, we have another caller. Yes, we do. Caller, your phone number ends in three, two, three. I'm going to unmute. Can you hear us? Yes, I can. Great. Jamie Cimo. 520. Yes. Jamie Cimo. 525 East 16th Avenue. I am pleased that Left Hand Brewing Company has listened to concerns and scaled back its proposed amphitheater, changed the facing of their temporary stage so that it faces north rather than toward the St. Vrain, and is not seeking a variance to the 150-foot riparian 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, et cetera. However, I echo some of the concerns. However, I echo city staff recommendations that Left Hand adhere to city noise ordinances, as well as monitor and mitigate any noise impacts associated with this event 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 that the pandemic will extend for another year, why doesn't it table its development application until such time as the pandemic has largely abated? This would also allow further progress on the Resilient St. Vrain flood mitigation project and removal of the parcel from the 100-year floodplain. What benefit does Left Hand 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 Pinyin's Habitat Noise Impact Assessment was revised and resubmitted. In the initial document, which came before PNZ prior to its June meeting, the numbers for predicted high frequency noise levels, DBA, and low frequency noise levels, DBC, were incorrect. Rather than this being brought up during the public hearing so that members of the public could provide input, an unidentified commissioner alerted city staff who then got in touch with the applicant contact, 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 in these discussion of deficiencies. Thank you very much. Thank you, Miss Simo. Susan, is there anybody else? No, not at this time. Okay. 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. One suggestion that I have, since 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. Of course, that kind of bleeds in with wildlife touches on noise. 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, you probably have some clarifying questions for Brian Schumacher or Miss Taylor. Brian, I actually do have a couple of those. 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. But that is not under consideration, correct? That is correct commissioners. We determined that that variance was not applicable to this application. Okay. Just another sort of procedural thing. 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 named 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 Schurnack and the rest of the commissioners. I did receive 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 assessors 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 Bowlin 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 plan zoning commission packet for this meeting if she had an answer to contact me if she had any additional concerns. If 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 Brian. Commissioner height. As an initial matter, my zoom capability 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 wanted to send that to me as a side note I'd appreciate it. I'll take off the discussions talking about sound and possibly the first question is for staff, which is, as I understand, I think it's 10.20.1 10 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 or is it the source being the edge of the property line being the source. And if the ladder with this particular application. Are we looking at the parcel or are we looking at all of, I think it's Indian peaks but let's just call it left hand breweries property. So when I look at that ordinance, 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. And that enforcement of the, 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 the source of the amplified sound. 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. And they'll have to assess if they can to continue on. So, is it that the city. Well, so the source of the sound, literally would be the amplifier. It sounds like the 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. Other, let me ask you this. Are there other examples of places in the community where we have outdoor amplified music regularly on a regular basis. It's typically been for I have say for example special events on their on their private property. You know we've issued special events for would be brewing and I know left hand 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 the condition that those are in compliance with noise standards and if there are complaints and they have to address and mitigate those complaints. Commissioner height you have more. I'm sorry I yield. Okay. Commissioner. In the parks, especially the part 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. There is 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. So for example, 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 best full level to go up to a DBA at the perimeter of the area where the permit is issued for. But as noted in the communication that exception does not apply to private property. I have some questions about this. This ordinance on so in as we see on on table 1020. Oh, oh. Hello did somebody need to chime in there. So table 10.20.1 10 be 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. During this Taylor's presentation she showed us a diagram that wave acoustics did that showed that they would meet 55 DBA at the residents but on this table indicates that it would need to be 50 DBA at the at the nearest residents during the nighttime when most of their events seem to be planned. If they are concerts. So, um, 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 ask them to address the complaint. So when 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 Teresa Tate paragraph e 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 near as well. And 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. Commissioner and that commissioners that is my reading of section 10.20.110 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. Now 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. Finding I'm not I'm getting a bunch of. Oh, I need to getting a bunch of warnings. So, um, zoom is trying to record my computer screen I need to open system preferences and allow it. So, um, if somebody else could share the screen that'd be great. Brian, could you do it. Yes, Susan, I was wondering if you could bring back up. So what I'm sorry, Commissioner Schoenach, you're requesting which it's attachment 10 of our packet, and it's wave. Engineering's report. Okay, let me give you that a shot. Okay. It should be out on the internet right I can pull it up. I'll be there too. Yeah, I'm sorry. My, my Apple is hitting me with all sorts of security requests. 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. There it is. Okay. 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 E in 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 off of their property on 55 decibels hitting the nearest residents. So, Teresa, you're saying that all of those locations. Oh, 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. Commissioner Schoenach commissioners, that's my understanding of the code. Okay. So, Commissioner Schoenach, if 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. The numbers 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. 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, 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. This has been Seep, Mr. Seep. What needs to be the sound pressure level at the back of the audience for somebody to feel that they are getting and what might be considered an adequate concert experience. This has been, can you all hear me. Yes. 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 of some research we did for some other venues where they added noise 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. Seep. Another follow on question for you with this. 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 with that building need to be masonry or does it matter what its construction is. Yes, masonry would 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 on Iran's question about community events, such as things like concerts downtown or or rhythm on the river on. There's usually concerts at the Boulder County fairgrounds. So what is it, let's assume that they're that they're hitting on the standards, 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, even very far away, say like a mile away. So what are some of the things going on at night the sound sometimes can travel further, depending on weather conditions. And sometimes you get unique events called a temperature inversion, where the temperature layers and the atmosphere flip and that can actually cause the sound where it starts propagating up and then we'll turn and bend back towards the ground and so can even kind of skip over an area and then land farther away from the venue. So something 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 that would attenuate more of the noise between the locations, and the wind direction can affect the sound propagation and all those things can kind of create unique conditions in addition to just different concerts might have different sound spectras, depending on the types of music if you have a blues band that's going to sound different from a EDM band that has a lot of base for hip hop or dance music. So all those things can affect the sound levels as well. Okay, thank you for that explanation. Brian, back to you. So, given our city attorney's interpretation of paragraph E of our ordinance and given what Mr. Seep 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 denial. Well, if they obviously if they can meet the standard. One of the conditions of approval that they need to meet 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 buying rules. So, um, Okay. So it puts left hand in a bind on that for them to please their customers for an event at 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. So I'm going to leave that where it is so that we as the commission can discuss that a little more there's more to discuss. Brian, do you mind unsharing your screen so so I can go back to you better. Okay. Commissioner Kohler. Thanks Chairman Sharon. I have a question I guess related to the topic that you are 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, yes, I stand corrected. Yes, 55. But to me it doesn't seem like they're the application as it is in violation as long as they're agreeing to end the shows by 10 and they're meeting the 55 threshold. But it is in violation because they're not meeting 55 at other locations because the most restrictive zone applies. They're not at 55 at the residence, but in these other areas on their diagram, such as on the right hand side of the image, they have decibels levels of 62, 56, 57. So they're exceeding it. And in the text of the report it said that at the intersection of Bowen and Grant Street, they would hit a decibel level of 75 DBA. And my next question might be for Ben I think in that figure one of the noise study. The nearest residence I think it's that mobile home park to the south that said that the DBA is 55. And I believe that was described as a maximum to the words exactly were across the river at the nearest residence the highest predicted of 55 DBA. However, in the text above the figure they describe those more as averages. So my question is, are these numbers that we look at we're looking at in these figures are they maximums are they averages. So the numbers there are all average levels. So, given that music goes up and down and level that would be an average over time. And my intent in that comment wishes that the area of 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 actually a maximum level it's the average level for that property. If that makes sense. Not completely sorry can you say 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 all throughout the mobile home park, based on its orientation to the stage in the distance. But the level itself is not a peak level or a maximum level it's an average level. As the music 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 it's measured you can get into a lot of details of what sort of time waiting you apply to the measurements and if you're using slow or fast waiting. Those peak numbers are going to be different. But it's usually on the order of something like plus or minus five decibels. And I guess why we're on the, the topic of the noise. The study seemed to assume that the berm would be would be built actually it was the, the four foot berm and a six foot fence. So the timing of that went because it was my understanding that's actually being built as part of the same brain, the resiliency and 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. That might be a better question for Mary but it's my understanding that the events would not happen until the, the berm and the fence are in place. Anything further commission call it. No, no, no, not on this topic for now. Okay, commissioner height. Thank you. Mr. C. are there other mitigating structures or construction means that left hand could implement to try to keep their open park feeling in space, but mitigate these, these sound waves offsite. If the 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 spend 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. The reason 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. It might vary since it's not a permanent fixed stage 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 is 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 has to also be very tall. The wall is 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 if 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 as some of the things that we considered but then ultimately ruled out and ended up using this stage orientation to try to direct the sound to the north and away from those properties rather than building a massive structure there. Commissioner height. Oh, you're done. Sorry that was a wave to say thank you and I shouldn't have waived. Okay, caught my eye. Commissioner Lukacz. Just I need a clarification with the predicted numbers. Considering the oldest 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 the six foot fence on top. I have a question and it might be both for Mr. Seath and the consultant from Kenyon. And 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. Yeah. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Just a second. Okay. If you could scroll down to page two, that's, that's where we have. Table. Table. Yep. Oh, sorry. That's the habitat conservation plan. Sorry to stop sharing that. Yeah. See that now. Yes. That looks like the right one. Okay. So we've got this table and Miss Taylor pointed this out. I have some questions about this. Brian, if you could just scroll just a tad up so we can see the text above. Here we go. So the text in the middle of the paragraph says the predicted noise level. So that's the second. Number in the, in the column was logarithmically added to the existing noise level. So the first number in order to evaluate total cumulative noise levels. And to develop a total predicted increase in noise levels. So either Mr. Seep or, or our representative from pinion. 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. Because frankly, I went and found some decibel calculators online. And that's not what comes out when you just do a simple 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. Yes, this is a Jake from pinion 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 added 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 55.5 in that first case. Okay. So, 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 show you the equation, 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 the log of 59, which is 1.8. So you're saying that your text is wrong, that you're not adding 53.7 to 59. That you're actually, see, you're confusing me because your text says you added the predicted to the existing at 3.7 to 59. I don't understand why. Why are you taking the log of 59? Because that's the sound pressure level in 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 a logarithmic. To the set value of 53.7. So let's pull up your formula and show me how you actually did the math because I'm still not able to get in agreement with you here. Okay, let's see. Could I share my screen with you? 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. We have the existing noise plus the predicted value. And to get the total, we took the existing plus the log of the predicted value. Why did you log of the predicted value instead of just the actual value and add decibel to decibel? Because this is a set value. It's not an additional emission. This is just what the background noise is. So at the furthest edge of the river, it's already 55.4 dBA. And this is going to add, 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, okay. 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 C2? So 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 is actually only an additional 1.8 to the existing noise level. But you have to prove that your additional level is 1.8. You're basically saying, oh, but my additional sound level is 1.8. But that's your conclusion. 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 decibel to decibel? And if you do that, you get a much higher number. So your delta is actually much larger. This is Eli with Pinyin. Can I jump in with another question that might clarify? And this is directed at, I guess, Ben. So the predicted decibels at the edge of the, whoa, sorry. Sorry about that. The predicted decibels are at the edge of the river being 59. Was that the sound only the sound coming from the speakers, or was that, because what we're trying to do is show that the existing sound is 53. And does the 59 take into account the current noise environment, or is that just starting from zero decibels like totally quiet? The 59 number is solely from the music venue. It doesn't include any adjustments for the background noise level. We haven't done any measurements on site 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 have a biologist, I'm not a math person, but if you take the log of 59, that's 1.8. But I see what you're saying that your question is, how is that the chain? Yeah. How is that the change in that might be mixing up the conclusion with the, with what the question is. So, and I just want to mention that the person that originally wrote this report has moved on from pinion. 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 year. Okay. I see. Mr. Seep, let me ask you, even though this was not your report, but you are an acoustic engineer. So, 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 db 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 had in contribute to each other. So, you know, I think the, you said it was 61 point something, which sounds correct based on the relationship of those two numbers there, just off the top of my head. Okay. And could you clarify again, what you told Ms. Miller on. So the predicted db, a level is what would be in addition to what's already existing. 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 background 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 would have to try to do some measurements with whatever the sound source is. If you have a nightclub or music venue or something, you would have to try and measure with and 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. What I would like to do is Brian, could you bring up a website? I think you can share the screen for the internet. And it's a website called noise tools.net. N-O-I-S-E-T-O-O-L-S.net. Bear with me for a second. Yeah, you betcha. No, I appreciate you doing the screen sharing because I'll try to get my computer to work better next time. Chair, can you repeat that address noise? Yeah, noise tools.net. I've got it for you. Oh, thank you, Susan. We can't do these meetings without Susan and Jane and Heather. 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. Seep if things are looking correct. Given his engineering background. Susan, could you do the first calculation, which is 53.7 plus 59. It equals, down at the bottom, you can see the formula that they used, which is 10 times log 10 of 10 to the 57.3 divided by 10, plus 10 to the 59 divided by 10. Mr. Seep, would you like the correct formula for adding decibels? 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 hit clear. It'll actually show us all of them once we get them all done. 55.4 plus 57. Okay. Let's start over. Yeah. So that first one was 55.4. Plus 57. 57. And 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, 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. This, then, if we look at the opinion report, it says for perspective, an increase of 3 decibels is barely perceptible to human ear. In general, wildlife are more sensitive to noise increases than humans as they have a greater ocular dependency for survival and mating 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. Wolford, I believe that's you. With decibel differences that are this large, because a 6 decibel difference from my understanding is a 4 times increase in sound pressure levels. Mr. Seep, am I correct about that? 6 decibels is 4 times the amount of sound. It depends on if you're measuring power or pressure, but yeah, I think that is correct. Okay. So Mr. Wolford, would you change your analysis of this proposal based on what we now know are the correct differences in decibels? Wow, you put me on the hot box, huh? Sorry. I'm certainly not an acoustic engineer or familiar with the decibel levels, but based on the written text here, it certainly would. Okay. So would you need more time to evaluate the effect of these decibel levels on wildlife? I mean, 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 show how badly wildlife are affected by decibel level changes. So they've not proven their case. But I would assume 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. So to the commission, there's more we can look at, such as traffic. Are there more questions about the noise levels? Commissioner Polin. Brian, I just do have a question because under 10, 2100 section A, every first hand plethora sound is that binding section 1337 020, 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 of any amplified sound from 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. Can you dig up what that definition of amplify sound is in 1337 020? I'm checking on it right now. What was the, what was the code citation? Teresa, go ahead. I'm sorry to interrupt, but I have that available if that would be helpful. Sure. So it's section 13.37.020, which defines amplified sound. To mean sound that is broadcast with the utilization of an amplification device to increase the volume. Okay. And to me, I mean, even without getting into the desk for levels, reading that one, that section A, the way I read it, it kind of just it, it just, 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 this full level. So that's, that's kind of where I'm at right now, unfortunately. Just a, just a point of order, Susan. I don't see commissioner on Iran. I'm here. Oh, you're there. Okay. All right. You just, you just hadn't popped up. Yeah, I was locked up 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 you. Okay. Let's, um, There's something else I'd like to look at. Oh, commissioner. Hi, go ahead. I've used enough air so far. Oh, uh, yeah, I think, um, Go ahead. Commissioner. I, uh, let's defer to city attorney Tate. I think she might have something to the commissioner. Paul on the point. Can you hear me? Yes. Great. So I'm chair sure not commissioners. Um, Part of what you're charged with is evaluating the evidence before you. Um, so any independent. Evidence that is presented here today. Um, That is not contained in the packet, for example, calculations, uh, 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, um, or supports, uh, or reports provided. Um, And can speak to the, uh, validity of those. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner. Hi. Yeah, that was observation. I was going to, um, share to the, you know, share your neck. You were. Your analysis is, is informative. But I'm not so sure it was necessarily in front of us. And I'm not so sure it's necessarily appropriate that we consider it. Even though. Pretty darn compelling. Um, Be that as it may, I think we heard from, um, Mr. I'm sorry, down Wohlford, um, That he might change his opinion, um, Based upon some of the, the, Of this information. Um, I also like commissioner Poland though, Have a problem with the sound issues and the fact that this. This proposal as presented with the evidence that has been presented can't meet, um, the appropriate standards. And so I think I might make a motion and I'm thinking about making this motion and, and which is to offer the. I don't even know if they could meet the standards for variance, but they might the applicant. With this set of circumstances needs to get around. These sound standards that it, that it can't meet. Um, and maybe Mr. Wild said, Al. 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. Um, I don't know if it's necessary for us to go further. Rather than have us deny this thing and require him to come back a year later. Um, I throw that out for discussion. Commissioner. Kind of turn apart on this issue. Um, I really liked the idea of. Having these kinds of events and centers. To take place. Um, I don't know if it's necessary for us to go further. Um, I don't know if it's necessary for us to go further or is not just a recreational or white light 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. To me, as a land use strategy. It's important 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 railroad, you know, the whole place 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 the main street. And the Roosevelt Park, we get that noise as well. But at the end of the day, you know. I kind of understand the way the city operates. If there's. you communicate and take a control. So I feel kind of, you know, here's a business has been in the city for so long and contributed to community life so many ways. And 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 in terms of the surrounding, if there's gonna be any concept or so, that's a good place to have it. I mean, just looking at whole around. If we're having in the middle of Main Street where blocks away all residential or we're having these events in the parks, in the middle of residential neighborhoods, I kind of scratch my head. Why not in that particular location? That's, I mean, I'm asking this question to Brian and maybe eternity as well that is there any way we can have a condition of at least up to 10 PM in the evening at least up to 10 PM in the evening that the concerts 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 article condition. And I'm sure the owners are very aware of the fact that this is gonna 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 or on about are there locations that are appropriate for concerts? I would argue that those are mapped out 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 use permit for Roosevelt Park and downtown, et cetera. But we've already decided where the appropriate zones are and they're on our map. So let me bring up one other topic. Because I think it applies also to some of the commissioner owner on's points about the compatibility of these sorts of events happening at this location, this particular location along the river. Brian, again, 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. All right, I'm getting there. Sure. Brian, if you prefer, I have it up. Oh, that's fine, I've got it right now. Page five, you said? Yeah, page five, where she lists the project number or the projected number of events per year. Right. So in Ms. Taylor's presentation, she made it clear that these events would happen May through October. 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 not the entire year, it's made it 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. And you look at their 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 per month. So what I'm getting at is that if we look at these numbers here that Ms. Taylor's provided us, it's the intensity of the use. Is the intensity of that many shows appropriate for this site? Should the neighborhood, should the residents of the mobile home park to the south, and possibly the residents to the north in Bonn's farm and to the 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 have 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 time because they're not in the packet or they were done ad hoc during this meeting. But the point is that what is presented in front of us does not prove that they meet the review criteria not at this time. So I will make a motion to approve PZR to 2020, what is our PZR number, to approve PZR 2020-4C, which is the PZR 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, Chair, this is the applicant. Do we have a chance to respond to the discussion? If one of us calls on you. Okay, or do we, will we have a chance to respond before the motion? Not necessarily, only if somebody calls on you. Okay. Commissioner Hite. I'd like to ask attorney Tate is it appropriate to ask the, I supposed to probably have to move to do so, but is it appropriate to inquire of the applicant 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? Chair Stronach, Commissioner Hite. 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. Certainly you can only decide matters that are before you. And so if there is more discussion to be had, 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 attempts to make this thing happen. I believe it otherwise would be appropriate where it's 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 15.02.0551, which requires that any of these, the general review conditions that the applications consistent with the comp plan, et cetera, and applies with applicable status codes, ordinances and regulations, this proposal doesn't meet the town's sound code. And I don't see how we can vote for it. Mr. Kohler. I guess I would actually like to hear from the applicant and maybe as well 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? Through all those meetings with the DRC, was it, are we interpreting the code differently? What happened to get it this far to come to this point and not 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 DBA levels were based on the zoning. So for example, we would meet 55 DBA at 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 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 events after 10 p.m. So we would be within that daylight hours. Does that make sense? So I guess it really just comes down to 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 not the way that we had interpreted and discussed it with planning staff. So we were under the impression that we were meeting those numbers where applicable based on those zones. And then also, I mean, if we're, even if they're, if we were, say we were needing to meet 55 DBA at Bowen Circle, we're at 57 and then down the street, we're at 56 at the property just to the east, which left hand owns, we're at 62. So we're not really not far off on 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, 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 on those spots, even if we were having to meet that 55 DBA. And then with regard to cherish your next question on the number of events, what you presented here, do you see that as a minimum to make this business model work? Is there flexibility in reducing the amount of events that you have? So, 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 predicted and discussed with the management group seems appropriate to make this space feasible from a financial standpoint as well as an operational standpoint. So, yeah, we're using those numbers based on the business model and we don't see anything in the land use code stating that there's that restriction. I'd love to speak. Oh, sorry, Mr. Wallace. 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 sound code here during the meeting from what we've, the guidance that we've received. 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 for some private parties and perhaps for a chili cookoff or yoga or a movie or whatever. And I really think that doing 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 gonna 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 us start the whole thing over, we're 300 KN, we're a private business. We part of many of those events that 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 Kohler. I guess, Brian, can you speak a little more to the city's interpretation of the sound code? And then I also, my follow-up question would be really to anyone who could answer it. What would be the 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. For music event. So to respond to your first question as we kind of talk towards the beginning of the deliberation by the commission and Commissioner Heitz 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 we get a complaint based on amplified sound then we approach the venue that's having that event and ask them to address the complaints associated with that. You know, I know that there's some questions of whether or not that's an appropriate standard and it's obviously that's something we'd have to have a discussion with city council. In terms of the question about, you had a question about conditionally approving it and that was with the condition that left hand 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 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, you know, is that something you guys would be able to deal with was having to get an a special event permit for any type of music event that would, you know, possibly put you over the noise threshold? Yeah, we've talked to Joni Marsh and Harold Dominguez about this specific topic. We're limited to 15 events permits per year 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 apply it to 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 kinds of events that you could have. I mean, the whole approach that we've taken is tell us what the requirement is and we'll 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 to me is problematic for us. And there's a fairness issue. I think that play that you gotta give us a chance. If you're gonna change the 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 Mr. 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 primary driver is the beer garden itself. If 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 the beer garden itself and we're able to host more people who are coming to our town to visit our brewery. So that's the primary function. We've gotten sideways with an element 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, a softer use, it's a green space in 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 looked 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 kinds of things to happen in industrial parks like where we are and we'll comply with the residential limitations, but we're in an industrial park and 75 dB is the limits we're using in the contiguous properties, most of which we already own. So I really would ask that you consider, if you're gonna 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 let us walk down the path and get shot. Commissioner Kohler. So I mean, I guess I agree with that and that it doesn't feel right to me to just reject this on a misinterpretation or just a different interpretation that they've been proceeding down for a number of months with the city to just be kind of blindsided by this, 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 misadventures until the skits worked out, but I don't feel good about just wholeheartedly denying it when no one seems to be completely clear about what that noise interpretation is. City Attorney Tate had her hand up, let's go to her. Yes, Your Honor, I wanted to go back and address Commissioner Hite's question about a withdrawal of an application. I'm referencing section 15.02.040E withdrawal of an application. A withdrawal needs to be in writing. Once a request for a withdrawal of an application is from a noticed agenda, which this would be, then that is subject to the discretion of the decision-making body. Additionally, 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, but one possible procedure would be to, the commission could consider deciding to postpone the rest of this hearing to a date certain. We could adjourn and postpone to a date certain. But City Attorney Tate, if we did that, would the applicant be able to provide different or more additions to the material, to the packet that's in front of us? Chair Schroedek, I wanna make sure that I understand your question and I understand the question to be, could they supplement the record, the materials that you have before you and supplement their record adhering? Right. Yes, I believe so. That would not supersede the information that's before you now, it would be additional information in the hearing that then the commission could take under consideration. Okay, Commissioner Hyatt. Immuting is difficult. So I was gonna ask the question that Attorney Tate answered, which was, would it be permissible to follow up on Mr. Walsh's suggestion that possibly it would be more fair to allow him to pull back his application to get this issue squared away? Because I really do see 10.20.100.E. When sound can be measured in more than one zone, the most restrictive standard applies and it appears that the applicant was 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 pursuing. And in that light, I find it, like Commissioner Coler said, 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 Chair Schurnack you might wanna withdraw your application and we think about continuing this hearing to another time. Right. Having heard all of this discussion, I do agree with Commissioner Hyatt and Commissioner Coler and also hearing from Ms. 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 for some consistency to Mr. Wallace's point. So I'm going to withdraw my motion to approve PZR 2020-4C, which was the PZR that would deny this. If we were to make a motion to postpone this to a date certain, how far in the future should we go? The applicant was asking for a two year extension to the entitlement anyway. So perhaps we can be generous with the postponement. Don, hi, Don Burchett. A Chairman Schurnack, you know, there is two ways that you could continue this. You could continue with the date certain, as you just mentioned, or we could just continue it. The difference for us is that if we just continue it 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 that 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 we don't have to keep continuing it and coming back to the commission if the project's not ready. Thank you, Don. Let me ask Mr. Wallace and or Ms. Taylor, would you be okay 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 far less onerous than starting over an entire new application. We've been noticing people for two years, as I said, we've been engaging neighborhoods and in different groups and modifying 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 somehow that happened as well because 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 generate funds 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 pandemic on having a place where you've got a couple hundred people all jammed together. It's really not in the cards right now anyway. So delaying it a few months is not gonna change anything massive on our end and I really appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Wallace, Ms. Commissioner Kohler. I guess I'd like to hear from some of the commissioners that we haven't heard from. Do we feel like we have this nailed down to that it's primarily a noise issue? Are there other, 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 maybe help resolve for the next time? 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 some of our analysis has been up to this point. So Commissioner Rukapache. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Schoenig. 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 a continuation once we're down to that point. But yes, it was in Brian's report to us that we could put constraints in about the frequency of events and that to be quite transparent about it that's one of my bigger concerns, especially events with 500 attendees or more or amplified events. If we had been discussing a conditioned PZR 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 of relying on complaints only 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 left hand 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. 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 based on the feedback that that did or didn't come in. So that was one thing I was thinking about. Another thing I was thinking of was about their parking. I am concerned about whether there's enough parking. The city seems to think there's an adequate parking. And left hand seems very willing and forward thinking about running shuttles from outside lots, et cetera. I would wanna see those shuttles and 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 left hand in an unplanned way. So I was thinking along those lines as well. And then one little detail is that I would like to see that crosswalk upgraded because I was in the traffic study. And I think the traffic engineer's suggestions on that were reasonable and would really help pedestrians. And I know that's one of your concerns, Commissioner McCotch. Any other ideas as to what was out there and on commissioner's minds about this proposal? Commissioner Kohler. 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 big events with amplified sound. And just coincidentally, I had kind of the same number in mind, maybe once large event a month for the first year until the applicant can meet with us and we can review how things went. And then I also had an issue with the crosswalk. I sort of envisioned that street being kind of dark and maybe that's not accurate, but that's just sort of how I envisioned it. And after the concert at 10 o'clock, you get some people that have a few drinks crossing Boston without some sort of lit crosswalks seemed a little dangerous. Maybe even one of those flashing signs that whenever someone's in the crosswalk, it's blinking or something to that effect I thought would be beneficial. Commissioner McCotch. Yes, thank you. I agree with the crosswalk. It could be updated with some beacons, especially at night at 10 p.m. when people are leaving, it will be hard. 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. So maybe we can help with some beacons. I don't know 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 pull-off or pull-in for drop-offs. You know, where is the shuttle going to drop off people? Is it gonna stop the traffic when it stops in front of the venue? And we also have rideshare all over, you know, Lyft, 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 approach of, you know, cities of tattletale. We'll 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 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 the sound. Commissioner Hunt. I had not thought about the number of events, the number of events being an issue. I am interested to hear Chair Schoernick and Commissioner Kohler's ideas about testing out and seeing how it works in the neighborhood. The problem I have with that though is, you know, how do we take that back and control it in future events? Which means that you have to build into that remedy and ability to tailor up or tailor down somehow. And that seems complicated. My other observations that I would share, 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-dependent ponds and those situations 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 the southwest corner of the property that found trientetraethylene, trientetracoreethylene in the groundwater, indicating that possibly some additional sampling should be done. Was there anything ever followed up with that? Was there any remediation done? Was there any additional sampling done? That's a question I have. Then possibly the city did some sampling along this area where the resilient st. drain storage or staging area is gonna take place, which found elevated levels of mercury. I was wondering how that was gonna be addressed, if at all. And then finally the request for an extension to possibly a two-year time period 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 ill logic that the consultant had in their report, saying 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, where we're kind of the last line of defense for some things. But as things move forward with this, if we go with the continuation, I would like to see a higher level of analysis come from city staff. We're only gonna 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. We need to step up and really look carefully at what is coming in the packet to us. Staff does a great job. I'm not complaining about the city staff, but we do need to catch details, especially like math. Another thing too is to some of the points Mr. Wallace made. I don't think, I'll speak for myself, but left hand is a fabulous company. They do great things, but those aren't our criteria upon which we make decisions. The criteria are explained in our code and our packet, what comes in front of us, what is presented to us by the consultants that the applicant hires needs to prove to us that the criteria have 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 is a reflection on the quality of what was in front of us proving that the criteria were met. So any motion for a continuance of some type? Commissioner Polin. I move that we move this to a date uncertainty we continue this to date uncertain. Okay, so we have a motion to continue with no certain date. Commissioner Hyte. I will second that motion. Okay, seconded by Commissioner Hyte. Those in favor, raise your hand and say aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? I don't see any. Jane, 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 Ms. Taylor, thank you very much for being here and helping us through this. 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 an, oh, we don't have an appeal notice because we continued it, nevermind. Okay, next item on our agenda is our final call for the public invited to be heard. 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 1-669-900-6833 and prompted enter the meeting ID 830-8729-5123. So it's 1-669-900-6833 enter the ID 830-8729-5123. We need five minutes to do this process. So we'll take a five-minute break. Chair, I'm about ready to stop sharing my screen if everyone would like to get back on camera. Okay, thank you, Susan. At the moment, I see no one and Jane is telling me there is no one at the Civic Center. Okay, all right. So we have a couple of minutes left and we're going to move on to the next item. Okay, all right. So we have nobody who wanted to speak at the final public invited to be heard. So we'll close that. Items from the commission. Anything from any commissioners? Commissioner Lukach. Thank you, Commissioner Schoenig. I have a question and maybe it's for the planning manager Don Burchett or maybe for the commission. What are we expecting to see considering COVID? Like we had now, we were considering an extension. Are we going to see more extensions brought to us? Or is there some state mandate that will override something for a certain period of time? Like 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 extension is really related more to the type of venue that that is than 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 expending a lot of money to start their construction because they're not foreseeing that the restrictions are going to prevent them from operating their business or starting 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 of 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 use that investment that they've made already in some cases for 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 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 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 kind of feeling that a little bit too. Thank you, John. I'd just like to mention that it was in the news last week that Alan Ginsberg, who was the developer who redeveloped the Twin Peaks Mall here in Longmont that 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, our planning manager? Chairman, yes, just an 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 26th and the August 19th meeting will not happen. So we are looking at August 26th though 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, bye. Bye, thanks. Thanks.