Planning Commission Study Session on Phase II UDC Amendments and Design Standards - September 1, 2021

The Erie Planning Commission held a study session on September 1, 2021, from 6:31 PM to 8:16 PM, to review and discuss Phase II amendments to the Unified Development Code (UDC) and the new Development Design Standards booklet. The meeting was a continuation of previous study sessions held on May 19, June 2, June 16, July 7, August 4, and August 18, 2021. No formal action was taken; the session was for discussion and feedback. The Commission also considered a long-standing agenda item on its own roles and responsibilities, which was ultimately dropped for future consideration.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the Agenda: Motion by Commissioner Witt, seconded by Commissioner Luthi, carried unanimously (6-0).
• Approval of Minutes: Approval of the August 18, 2021, Planning Commission Meeting Minutes. Motion by Commissioner Hoback, seconded by Commissioner Sawusch, carried unanimously (6-0).

Public Comments & Testimony

• No public comments were made.

Discussion Items

• Phase II UDC Amendments and Development Design Standards (Agenda Item 21-354):

  • Staff (Fred Starr, Director of Planning & Development, and Deborah Bachelder, Planning Manager/Deputy Director) presented a comprehensive overview of proposed changes to UDC Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 11, along with a new residential Development Design Standards booklet.
  • Key changes discussed:
    • Moving the Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay district to inactive status, using the Planned Development (PD) zone district instead (PDs are more flexible and have better legal standing).
    • Updating dimensional standards (Chapter 4) to allow smaller lots, alley-loaded designs, and garden courts to accommodate current housing trends without requiring rezonings.
    • Reducing maximum building height from 45 feet to 35 feet in the Neighborhood Mixed-Use zone district (Old Town) and for residential uses in the Downtown zone district (Old Town) to ensure compatibility with existing homes.
    • Streamlining the minor subdivision process to an administrative review for up to 10 lots, with safeguards against repetitive use.
    • Removing most annexation language from Chapter 7, deferring to state statutes (CRS) and a user guide, following legal advice to avoid conflicts with frequently changing state law.
  • Commission questions and staff clarifications:
    • Chair Zuniga asked about the 35-acre minimum lot size in the Agricultural Holding zone district; staff confirmed it applies to subdivisions, not the initial lot size upon annexation.
    • Commissioner Luthi asked about housing diversity requirements; staff confirmed that developers will need to identify density and housing types upfront, and the updated zone districts will require appropriate zoning for different densities.
    • Commissioner Sawusch expressed concern about the sparse annexation section; staff explained that cross-referencing state statutes is standard practice to avoid legal conflicts and that a user guide provides procedural details. A straw poll showed majority support for adding a sentence explaining why the section is brief.
    • Chair Zuniga raised the issue of average density vs. density per buildable acre; staff explained that changes to Chapters 3 and 4 (restricting housing types by zone district and setting specific lot sizes) are designed to prevent developers from using large open spaces to achieve low average densities while building high-density pockets.
    • Commissioner Hoback asked about the difference between PD and PUD; staff clarified that PD is a direct zone district without a base zone, while PUD is an overlay. A developer (John Lee, via public comment) stated he would choose PD over PUD for large projects.
    • Commissioner Sawusch questioned the removal of single-family attached uses from the Low-Density Residential (LR) zone; staff said this aligns with the Comprehensive Plan's goal of directing attached housing to medium-density zones and prevents surprises late in development.
    • Commissioner Sawusch also raised safety concerns about window well encroachments (Chapter 4); staff noted that building code will address egress safety, and the building department prefers safety language in the building code, not the UDC.
    • Commissioner Sawusch asked about the removal of appeal hearings for final plats, minor subdivisions, etc. from the review entities table; staff clarified that appeals go to the Board of Adjustment, and final plats are administrative recording documents rarely denied. The Board of Adjustment handles appeals for variances, but a denied final plat would likely go to court.

• Planning Commission Roles and Responsibilities (Agenda Item 21-368):

  • This item had been continued from six previous meetings. Chair Zuniga noted that the UDC revisions are defining the Commission's quasi-judicial role, and a broader discussion of the Commission's vision might be more appropriate during future Comprehensive Plan updates. Commissioner Ames moved to drop the item from the agenda until a later date; the motion was seconded by Commissioner Witt and carried unanimously (6-0).

Key Outcomes

• No formal votes were taken on the UDC amendments; the study session was for feedback only. Staff will incorporate the Commission's input and present the amendments to the Board of Trustees at a study session before returning to the Planning Commission and Board of Trustees for public hearings and adoption.
• The Commission agreed to add a brief explanatory sentence to the annexation section (Chapter 7) regarding the reliance on state statutes.
• The Planning Commission roles and responsibilities agenda item was dropped from future agendas until the Commission decides to revisit it.
• The meeting adjourned at 8:16 PM.