Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the September 17th, 2025 regular meeting of the town of Erie Pointing Commission.

The time is now 6 31 p.m.

and I'm calling this meeting to order.

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Let's see.

Will the Secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth.

Here.

Commissioner Solbush.

Live from Town Hall.

Commissioner Dreckman is absent and excused.

Commissioner Burns.

Here.

Commissioner Bahem appears to be absent.

Vice Chair Brutus.

Here.

Chair Hempel.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have an agenda before us this evening.

Does staff have any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

Who wants to make a motion?

Motion.

Commissioner Booth.

Second.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

This brings us to approval of the September 3rd, 2025 point of commission meeting minutes.

Do we have any changes or request to make a motion?

Motion.

Commissioner Booth.

Okay.

Second.

Thank you.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

This brings us to the public comments portion of the meeting.

This is for public comments intended for items not on already scheduled on the agenda to be discussed.

Is there anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience for general public comment?

Um we have one person in the virtual waiting room.

Please raise your hand if you would like to speak generally.

Seeing no hands raised.

All right.

We have one person in attendance.

Are you here to speak generally or on the application?

Okay.

Okay.

Let me go through my spiel and then we'll get you up there.

All right.

Public comment is limited to three minutes per person.

When you are called upon, you are required to state your name and place of residence for the record.

If you are appearing on behalf of a person or organization, please provide the name and place of residence of the person or organization you are representing.

Public comment is not an interactive question and answer form, but rather a time for you to state your comments on a particular issue or item.

You will be given an audible warning when you have 20 seconds remaining.

At the three minute mark, the light will turn red for in-person, and I'll ask that you finish your final sentence.

If you're giving comments virtually, we ask that you wrap up and mute your microphone.

You may resume watching the meeting or disconnect at that time.

So we have Meg and John Knofsinger.

Please come to the microphone.

Please state your state your name and address for the record.

My name is Meg Knopf Singer.

Address is 4242 North, 119th Street, Lafayette, Colorado.

But I border Erie very closely.

And so a farm behind me sold out, and a Lafferty subdivision started.

And when that started, my front yard turned into a small creek river.

And then my basement started flooding, and I actually had like what looked like a fountain coming up.

My grab the groundwater was so intense.

Um I had fans constantly emptying dehumidifiers.

I reached out to the town saying, like, did you approve this?

There was no help.

I've been emailing for months and months and months and just shoved off.

Nobody cares.

They don't care.

They don't reach back.

Um I have confirmation that they illegally went on to the railroad company and removed a monolith, which the mines um safety division had put in place, and they had confirmed with me that they illegally removed that and they have disrupted the groundwater in such a way that it's ruining our whole neighborhood.

So one neighbor is trying to like pump his house up because he's basically a boat.

My neighbor, her yard is in the same shape.

My pasture has turned into a swamp so that I can't even keep my horse there anymore.

I have to board my horse some of the year in the spring, and I'm guessing it's coming again when the water runs.

And so I'm at a complete loss because everybody shoves me in a different direction.

But our small neighborhood, mostly of elderly, I'm the youngest one with kids, but um our properties are being destroyed, and nobody seems to matter or care.

And I understand tonight you're here again, like build more, it's build more, more and more.

And it's like we have real land and properties that are being destroyed.

And I would like for someone to care.

So we've actually been in the back channel of this with the KB Homes Lafferty project, um, the division of mining.

We've got all the um everything that goes all the way to the uh 19 or 1890s, all the railroads.

We've sp I've spoken to RTD, who actually owns a rail line right now.

There's three culverts that sit there, two of them are blocked.

So what's happened is the uh they've taken that cap off one of the mines, it's flooding at a hundred uh gallons of water per hour to our basement to the state, and it's been going on for almost six months.

So we're trying to put this in the open so that we can actually have a form in the meeting at the council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sir, uh, just for the record, can you provide your name and address?

Uh my name's John Ron Dash, not Knobsinger, but it's voice of residence, by the way.

It's not necessarily address.

All right.

Thank you for your comments.

We'll move to general business.

Uh, tonight we have one item for general business and just for everyone's info.

I am targeting finishing meetings generally by 8:30.

So tonight I'm gonna try a slightly different method when we go to commission questions.

Don't be too alarmed, but we can discuss later to see how it really works.

Um the first item is 25475, a public hearing for a resolution of the point of commission of the town of Erie recommending the town council approve the Canyon Creek filing number 11 preliminary plot.

And just for everyone's information, I'll go through the order of proceedings per municipal code 10-7-2 G4.

Uh, the time is now 6 38 p.m.

And I'm opening the public hearing.

I'll turn it over to staff and then applicant for presentations.

Thank you.

Good evening, planning commission.

I'm Ali Burkhalter, senior planner with the town of Erie assigned to this land use application.

Canyon Creek filing number 11 preliminary plat.

I'll generally go over the development process where we're at as far as approvals and when you might see this project next.

And then I'll generally go through the project at a high level and approval criteria, and then give my own recommendation.

I'll note that I would like to leave most of the details of the design itself to the applicant's presentation.

As far as the development process, um, this canyon creek is so unique because it has so much history, but we have an annexation and a PD zoning going back decades, and here we are at with preliminary plat.

Um, that has a planning commission recommendation and then a town council approval.

Um, if it were to be approved by town council, we'd then proceed with a final plat and development agreement that would go to town council on consent agenda.

You guys, planning commission would see it again for site plan due to the number of townhomes exceeding 25,000 square feet.

Um, so the site plan for the townhomes would be before this commission once again, before we proceed to public improvements and building permits, which would be handled administratively.

So overall, we're at preliminary plat.

There's still lots to be done ahead.

This project um conforms with a comprehensive plan future land use of residential low.

I'll get into that in a second, as well as the zoning for Canyon Creek PD.

It's roughly nine and a half acres.

Um, it's currently vacant and adjacent the under construction filing number eight of Canyon Creek.

And tonight we're proposing 81 townhome lots that would be for sale at market rate, no affordable housing proposed.

Um when trying to put together the location because this is a very um in the works development area.

I will roughly just say it's south of J Road, not adjacent J Road.

It's west of County Line.

There's a lot before you get to County Line, but then north of Tolene.

So there's a lot of Canyon Creek filing seven and eight occurring north of Tolene.

This would be the northernmost expansion of that development just south of the RTD railroad.

And then it's east of Jasper slash Lombardy.

Lombardi would be the connection and the addressing road as it continues north from Tolene.

The adjacent zoning and land use I'll get into in the next slide.

This land area was originally annexed in 1970 as home stake, and it was part of the home stake PUD, which later became Canyon Creek as we know it today in 2001, which originally was approved with 275 townhome units.

And then this land area, the subject site was most recently part of the Canyon Creek Filing 8 final plat and was designated for future development.

As you know, our comprehensive plan was recently updated in 2024.

During that comprehensive plan update, we designated the site residential low.

In previous comprehensive plans, it's designated medium density.

Those designations have similar land use.

So both designate townhomes or allow for town homes.

Our residential low category as it is today would allow up to townhomes but not apartments.

So it is still consistent with the residential low category, and then roughly similar dwelling units per acre.

The 2024 comprehensive plan kind of caps at eight dwelling units per acre, and they're just a little bit over at 8.6.

So we generally find it consistent.

But as well, this preliminary plaque came in while we were still under the 2021 comprehensive plan, which had the medium density residential, so it is also consistent with the comprehensive plan that was in place when this came into application.

As far as the zoning, um, to the north, you have unincorporated Boulder County, a little bit further north, you have Wild Rose with low density residential.

To the south, you have Canyon Creek and Creek Side with the low density residential, both are part of Canyon Creek's PD, as well to the east and to the west.

So generally surrounded by its own PD with low des low density residential as the designation.

As I mentioned previously, the Canyon Creek PD consistently has shown a maximum of 275 units.

During different iterations, it designated it as all town homes.

And then during one of the PD amendments, it switched to medium density residential to give more flexibility for townhomes, duplexes, paired homes, other designations of low density residential.

This one is consistent with the townhome designation.

As far as streets and access, everything is fairly new out there and was well planned for.

So for the neighborhood park, we have the 18-acre country fields neighborhood park off of Tynan, I think is how you say it.

Fairly close by, a little bit to the southwest, and that was provided in filing one.

Staff would also seek fee and lo if needed.

For pocket parks, they're provided in filing seven and filing eight.

And I'll show in the next slide kind of their distance to this new development.

And then as far as open space, that was also provided in the adjacent filing number seven.

I'll state that in Ostab's review of the sketch plan, they accepted um all of this acreage and dedication with the additional fee and lieu as required during the DA process, which will be the next step.

So generally everyone's happy with how everything's being provided, and then requiring additional fee and lieu as needed.

I'll note community park is not on this chart, and that would all be fee and loo.

Um it didn't meet the requirement or threshold for that.

Um as I stated, pocket parks are provided in filing seven and eight, and that's the kind of quarter mile radius we'd be looking for.

So filing eight's uh pocket park um all of filing 11 is within a quarter mile radius of it, and then for filing seven for additional coverage is just a little bit outside that quarter mile radius.

Sorry, I thought there was a trail one.

Um additionally, we have connections for the spine trail along the north boundary of filing 11.

So that spine trail, I believe, is part of the larger planned network of the boulder to Erie regional trail, BERT.

Um that's tying us into a larger regional network that is being constructed, is already constructed with filing eight.

I believe the concrete's already out there.

Um, so that's already there, and then this project has planned sidewalk connections into the spine trail along the north boundary.

For natural resources and environmental hazards, our environmental analyst reviewed everything and had no concerns as well as all of our referral agencies.

Their riparian area noted was not of significant nature for us to preserve, and the habitats as noted um did not have any habitants per se for us to be protecting for oil and gas.

Um, this is kind of why this is filing 11 and not included in filing eight.

So at time of filing eight, we were still under review of those plugged in abandoned wells.

As such, all have been now plugged in abandoned, the majority being in 2019.

One was done in 2022 and the final one in 2023.

Our environmental services team has reviewed all of the paperwork and feel confident in having the setbacks of 50 by 100.

Additionally, staff requested that there be a 30-foot garden court entirely separate from the oil and gas tract.

So that's why there's kind of a weird tract O and then track C, so that we could get some extra buffer as well.

That gets me just to our approval criteria.

Um as already stated, this uh preliminary application is generally consistent with the town's currently adopted comprehensive plan.

It's intent, it matches the intent of the zoning district and the Canyon Creek PD.

Um, it's layout of lots, streets, driveways, utilities, drainage, um, all meet the town's standards, and they maximize the open space in development in the larger context of the Canyon Creek PD, and there was nothing to preserve as far as protected wildlife or trees or vegetation.

The land use application complies with all applicable development and design standards as set forth in the UDC, as well as the layout of the subdivision meets all of our criteria for lot layouts and setbacks.

The application complies with all regulations for federal and state governments as well as relevant jurisdictions.

We provided referrals to all agencies with no further review, no further comments.

It meets it does not produce any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment for our review, and is integrated as needed with connections and sidewalks to trails.

Mostly because they're all still in development.

And then there are no repeat, we did repeat.

I'm sorry, our little and then lastly, there's adequate and sufficient public safety transportation utility facilities and services.

Our school districts have also been provided for with Red Hawk Elementary nearby and uh school fees as needed at building permit.

And then lastly, there is um the proposed phasing for the development allows for available infrastructure capacity with the proposed neighboring construction.

Um this was an adequately noticed public hearing with a neighborhood meeting taking place within that date is incorrect.

I apologize.

I will have to pull up the correct date.

It was not November 11th, 2024.

I'm sorry.

Yes, sorry.

Um, so it wasn't uh neighborhood meeting properly noticed within six month months of June 12th.

Um, and then the public notice for this hearing.

Again, I am so sorry, I don't know what happened to those dates.

Of August 29th, 2025.

All of those dates were met with the 15-day um public hearing notice for tonight.

Lastly, staff recommends that planning commission adopt resolution 25-13 recommending approval to town council with the following conditions of approval.

Um, that the applicant execute a development agreement in conjunction with the final plat, that they make all technical corrections to the preliminary plat and related documents as directed with town staff comments, and then lastly, that they shall make a correction to the maintenance access to water quality pond for the town engineering division comments.

And I'll hand it off for the applicant presentation.

While they're coming up, I'll just note that the correct dates are in the staff report.

I'm not sure what happened with the presentation, but yeah.

Good evening, commissioners and staff.

My name's Anthony Files.

I'm with Terracina Design, but everyone calls me Ziggy, so you can call me whatever you like.

Um we're located at 1020 East Gerard Avenue, Denver, Colorado.

We're the planners and landscape architects for Canyon Creek filing 11.

First off, I'd like to say thank you for taking the time this evening.

I'd also like to thank Ellie for her presentation and the staff support throughout the preliminary process.

Allie did cover a lot of information about our projects, so ours will be covering how it fits in with the overall Canyon Creek development, our site plan, and then the product we're also proposing for the project.

We're also available after for questions.

With me here today is Dan Glasso and Alex Ginter with Tri-Point Homes, the builder.

David Tyson with LJA, our civil engineer, Brian Haran with Galloway, our traffic engineer.

Um now I'll turn it over to Alex to share a few words about Tri-Point Homes.

Good evening, commissioners and staff.

Thank you for your time tonight.

My name is Alex Ginter.

Uh, I work for Tri-Point Homes.

We have been building in Colorado for over 12 years now.

Everyone on our Colorado-based team is passionate about providing premium lifestyle products to local Coloradans across the greater Denver metro area.

We are considered the best of big and small.

Our products have ranged from 60-foot-wide single-family detached residences to various styles of attached products, including paired homes and townhomes.

Since 2013, our division alone has delivered over 2,000 homes to happy homeowners.

So on this slide, you you will see some of our other divisions across the country.

Um, and then on the next slide, uh, we have our currently open communities across the Denver metro area.

On the graphic to the right, you will see that we have communities all the way from Berthood down to Castle Pines and everywhere in between.

And we are really excited to talk to you more about this proposed project here in Erie to fulfill the last of the three product types required by the already approved Canyon Creek PD.

We believe we can provide an elevated experience to folks looking to live in Erie, but who want something with a smaller footprint.

I'll give it back to Ziggy now.

Thank you.

Filing 11 highlighted in red and white.

Um, as you can see, it's one of the final pieces of change development.

As Alex mentioned, as part of the mixed or medium density residential, required to provide multiple housing types in the development.

So with this filing one through seven, and Lafferty provided single family attached or detached homes, filing eight, paired homes, filing eleven, our site will be proposed as town homes.

This was to have a balance and a range of housing product in the area, and provide house at different price points.

As Ali said, this portion of the project is in construction.

Um the infrastructure serving our site, including Lombardy Street, also known as Jasper Street, the J Road roundabout, all the wet and dry utilities will be installed and are being currently installed by KB homes with a filing seven and eight.

Um, it is our understanding they're on track to complete soon.

Most of it is already currently in.

Um but once complete the roads, water, sanitary, storm systems will have the capacity to serve our product.

This slide illustrates how we're tying in with the currently approved seven and eight.

You could also see the two pocket parks that Ali mentioned that will be also sort of servicing our neighborhood and our residents as well as the general public.

You see here today is our site plan.

The intent was to create and expand on the pedestrian vehicular network established in filing eight to the south.

Um, some of the highlights are the centralized green court that connects the spine trail to the north, um, expanding the architectural edge along Lombardy along with providing a landscape buffer for those homes, and really trying to seamlessly seamlessly tie in to the paired homes that are provided within filing eight.

In the center of the site, you'll see the oil and gas well setbacks as shown on the staff's presentation.

We've designated this area as a landscape track along with the wagon drive.

Um as for parking, we exceed the requirements by 100 spaces.

189 are required.

We're providing 289 spaces.

That's accomplished by two car garages for each unit.

Uh, we're also providing tandem parking behind several of the units, and then head in guest parking along the private drives, all of them trying to be in walking distance of each unit.

Here's a rendering of Lombardy Street showing you kind of the product that we're offering.

The townhomes will be three styles: farmhouse, prairie, mid-century modern with multiple elevations, creating a variety in architecture while trying to while trying to create a cohesive neighborhood.

Each townhome offer will be two to three bedrooms, two and a half bath, average 1500 square feet, offer two-car garages, and also large front patios and outdoor living spaces.

Home pricing is projected to be in the mid-500s.

So in conclusion, Canyon Creek Filing 11 completes the Canyon Creek community in a way that provides housing diversity, strengthens road and trail connections, and delivers an attractive neighborhood for residents believe.

On behalf of our team, I want to thank you guys again for your time and consideration, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for your presentations.

Time is now 7 o'clock p.m.

and we'll move to public testimony.

Is anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience for public comment?

We have one attendee in the virtual waiting room.

Please raise your hand if you'd like to speak.

Seeing no hands in the virtual waiting room.

Thank you.

And um we'll move to questions and a change that I want to do tonight.

Is we're just gonna start with two questions.

Everybody gets a chance to ask two, and then we'll go back around, make sure everyone gets all their questions answered.

Um I will start with Commissioner Burns.

Two questions.

Yeah, start with to start with.

Um the in the staff report there was um an item environmental hazards that talked about there was no undermining.

Um there's no actual mining operations in the uh filing area, yet there may be a dip position of materials.

Um has there been any kind of surface investigation or survey done.

I guess as part of that statement that that would indicate any kind of potential hazardous material in the surface for filing 11.

I don't believe there was specific investigations.

I believe we used the filing seven and eight, and those were sufficient for environmental services to sign off on this filing.

Okay, there's no indication of like a any particular location.

It just caught my eye in the staff report that and I noted that in the presentation there's an area of surface disturbance that was noted, but I wasn't sure if those were related.

I'm not aware, but I can note it and we can further investigate it with final plat unless Ziggy has any further answers on that matter.

Umrigin there was some questions about mine subsidence in the area, and some of the maps were inconsistent, they kind of just ended, and you know it's from the 1800s, so the mapping might have just not been accurate.

So CGS actually recommended that we go do some more borings in the area.

So we did provide in a supplemental report that went into some of the areas to the north where they thought the mapping might continue, and they were able to provide that there was no evidence of any mine subsidence activity in that area, but that was it more in relation to mine subsidence.

Yeah, like I said, this it seemed to reflect more this may be like either tailings or excavation spoils that may have been dumped or stockpiled in some manner.

Is is kind of how I interpreted that.

So which would be outside of the of the undermining situation, but it may affect the soils.

Yeah, just was curious if there was any.

I know they did additional borings, so they didn't find anything of that in that report that was significant.

So there might be some in the final geotech report that we might have to address.

What more in a clarification?

Where exactly is the supplemental geotechnical for the borings that were cre that were completed?

Maybe for staff on that question.

Yeah.

Yeah.

There's a soil sampling memo in the first submittal link.

Is that it?

First submittal.

And which one?

From ERO.

So they're an environmental.

Okay.

So in the first complete submittal, there's an submittal item labeled 9L soil sampling.

And that's dated January 10th, 2018.

And that is the surface soil sampling for Canyon Creek.

And that notes the five additional samples of surface soils.

So this would have been part of the filing seven and eight original submittal materials, but then again we're reviewed with filing eleven.

Did that answer the original question?

Sorry.

Yes.

I guess in a sense it just, yeah, if it it wasn't explicitly stated, so that's where I was curious.

I don't have to look into that.

Um more specifically.

Um I guess the point of order clarification.

Sounds like it was in the is that resolved.

So the applicant's middle town comments combined and then on that one.

Is that yeah, the the one dated 2024 for 29 first completes the middle.

Um I will address my questions.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um my second question.

I guess it was more of a just a point of edification for for maybe me.

Umted that um with that abandoned uh oil and gas pad.

Um we reduced the setback um to the hundred by um 50 by 50.

Um, but then we've also included additional buffer tracks.

So I guess I'm a little confused why we reduce the setback and then put another setback in.

Yes.

So within plannings uh chapter five, we require homes to front on garden courts or streets and or parks.

Um, and so with wanting to front on a garden court, and uh I was requiring the homes to front on a garden court, a garden court is required to be 30 feet, and I did not want a garden court designation over plugged in abandoned wells.

So that is where I I requested two separate tracks.

Okay, it it just seems I'm gonna say, you know, uh a little counterintuitive to reduce the setback in one step and then add it back.

Yeah, so sorry, I shouldn't say that we're requesting additional setback.

I just asked for additional landscaping garden court open space that wouldn't be encumbered by any plug-in abandoned wells and that set back.

Okay, because the um in essence the the calculation of the SEPEC does include the buffer tract on the north and on the so the 50 by 100 is the tract C.

Yep.

Um, and so that's fully accounted for within that, and they would have had every right to build up to that.

Oh, so that it's over in addition to in addition to it.

I requested that the garden court be separate so that if the HOA were to want any amenities in a garden court, they want it be a come like encumbered by anything with the plugged in abandoned wells or anything that could occur there.

Okay, so this um that decision to kind of add it back is more specifically due to the type of tract the proposed development on the adjacent site correct for the plot.

Yeah, um, because we list out the track uses.

Um, I wanted a separate tract that would be specifically garden court from the one that included the plugged in abandoned wells.

Okay, that makes sense.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I'll start with two maybe quick ones.

Will the alleys be town owned or owned by the residents?

That they'll be owned and maintained by the HOA.

Okay.

Um and then on slide seven of the staff presentation, it showed the whole area with the wind use designation.

Do you know the average density of the whole site?

I do not.

So go ahead.

Gross density for the Canyon Creek PD would be 3.6.

And then the gross density for filing eight itself with the R81 and the 88 that are already proposed is 8.3 per acre.

And you said that was five.

And ours would be 8.6.

Okay.

So filing 8 and filing 11 makeup are above file eight, but the entire Canyon Creek is within the low residential.

Okay.

Those are my two questions.

Or vice chairbros.

Okay.

Given the public comment we had earlier and the fact that you're right next to Lafferty.

Um the drainage report is saying that the minimal it's the increase was 0.13%, so pretty tiny.

Um you still stand by that.

Yes, and we all we're also in a different basin.

Our our site drains to the east into the regional pond that's just east of us.

Okay.

But I thought you said you were by lap for you.

You can refrain from back and forth.

All right.

So all right.

And the other was more almost for information.

I noticed that you talked about the internet or cable fiber being done by CenturyLink.

So is Allah not there yet?

Is that the idea?

Um I spoke with their customer service today, actually.

Um they are willing to go into this filing, but they don't according to them today, they don't have the infrastructure in yet, um, but they do have it on their future uh availability, and we would anticipate offering as much as as possible to our uh future residents.

Okay, the reason I ask is when they go into an area that's already been developed, it's a lot harder and causes a lot more disruption.

I've I've requested uh so that they come into the community already.

Okay.

Um so I've started that process so that we don't get into that situation.

Perfect, thank you.

Commissioner Booth.

Um, I'll start with the easy one.

Um so Bert that was brought up this evening in the neighborhood meeting.

Um, it looked like there was a question asked in there about the RTD right away, and if that's going to be a part of the trail to Boulder, which I'm assuming is the same as Bert.

Um, the response in the meeting was that the answer was they weren't sure, nothing that they had seen.

Um, and just mentioned their adjacent uh to the spine trail.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Yeah, let me see if there's a better image at all.

Okay.

Um, so you can kind of see at the top right corner of that image, it's a little blurry.

So what's actually happening is you have this filing 11, and then you actually have a tract that is the town of Erie owned um spine trail that was dedicated with filing eight, and then you separately have the RTD right away.

So the trail is not occurring within the RTD right-away, it's occurring adjacent in a town-owned tract that's um has the spine trail built in it.

Okay.

Um, my second question is also about the drainage.

Um this is probably more for staff.

So I feel like this is a common theme in when we have um public comment come.

And it seems to be neighbors that usually come to these meetings and express their concerns over it.

So when we do these studies, um, my first question, clarifying question, is it just looking at the property itself in the drainage, or does it take into consideration what could potentially happen to the neighbors around?

Um since I do not have someone from engineering here tonight, I will speak to the best of my abilities by add that asterisk of my understanding of what they do in their development review.

So my understanding is that there's an overall town-wide drainage plan, and um we send external referral to Merrick for drainage and utility, and Merrick Engineering um puts their model of this little you know piece of the pie into the overall town wide plan for drainage, and they calculate that and then they provide comments.

So my understanding is that as far as drainage that that gets calculated into an overall model um that would include these different basin areas as was mentioned.

So this project filing 11 goes into the detention pond 1040.

So let me see if I have a good image.

So the open space green area undeveloped directly to the east is the detention pond 1040, and that's my understanding is that this all drains into that basin.

And so we have modeling for everything that would go into that basin, and then we evaluate based on that.

Okay.

And then my follow-up question to that is um do residents have a path like to reach out if there seems to continue to be issues um that weren't expected.

Like out example, is the town willing to help answer or maybe you already answered my question.

I saw you sitting right there trying to figure out where they were located.

Um yes, and I've given um her my card.

We're gonna talk tomorrow.

Perfect.

Um my understanding is that uh residents can definitely come talk to our public works division.

Um my understanding would also be that Lafferty is within our initial acceptance process.

So we'd be looking to see if everything is performing as we intended or approved the design to be.

Um, I don't think Lafferty would be done with initial acceptance.

So if something's not performing as we intended, um, we have the opportunity to request changes.

Okay.

And Lafferty's complete done.

No, Lafferty, I don't believe has building permits, so I don't think it would be they're not complete.

No, they're still within our warranty period and initials.

That was maybe like five.

There's some there's a blur here.

Commissioner Salish.

Okay, I'm gonna pull on the thread from uh from earlier.

Um related to the borings, you said that there were some borings that were completed.

I guess staff was saying completed uh about 2018, and it was the soil sampling, is that correct?

Yeah.

Um we also western ecological also went out in 23 last year.

It was part of the third review submittal, and that's what I was referencing for the mines of items questions that we got from CGS.

Okay, the third submittal.

So within the dated 2024 1209 third submittal, there is a file titled Canyon Creek Filing 11 subsidence, and that one is dated reloading uh November 27th, 2023.

Okay, and we had so there were three borings that were completed.

Is that correct?

I'm not sure how many borings we could check in on it is saying in the report um yeah, it looks like it says that there were three borings that were completed as well as investigation of the previous reports.

Is that your understanding?

Yes.

Okay.

Um do you know of any of the boring samples, any of the substance reports which actually were completed on the interior of this project instead of the exterior and any of those that went beyond 25 to 35 feet?

I'd have to check on the depth.

I thought they went further down than the report says 10 feet.

For the for the that one that was completed in 2023, I believe it is, correct?

Or 2024?

Yeah.

Okay.

And those were three that were completed on the exterior, the perimeter, uh, so the northern and eastern most portions.

Yeah, Western Ecological worked with CG still at CGS to determine where she wanted those locations and investigation to be done based on where she thought the mines might be occurring that wasn't mapped, and those were the boring locations determined by CGS.

Okay.

Um in terms of the traffic report, um, I see that there are two memos uh that have been completed.

Um a couple of addendums to the original traffic report from June 16, 2021.

Um, except for the addendum or the traffic report completed in 2021.

Has there been any other traffic studies completed?

Yeah, we have our traffic engineer here, but we were we provided a traffic memo where they did a supplemental to add our traffic volume onto those studies that were previously done with Canyon Creek 7 and 8 and Lafferty.

Those that traffic report got combined in 2021 when the Lafferty project got approved to include 7, 8 and Lafferty originally was just seven and eight, then Lafferty got added, and then our memo added the traffic volumes generated by filing 11.

And that's in the fifth submittal link.

So all we have are the two addendums that were provided, one shortly, uh I think it was uh first or second submittal, and then there was one in the third or fourth submittal, correct?

Galloway and another one.

Galloway prepared our and foxtuttle, I think was the first one.

Fox Tuttle's the review was our third party for the that reviewed and worked with Galloway to determine what they needed to provide on the memo.

And uh I think they expanded to a different intersection at the I think we went in the fifth middle.

There was not traffic that it was updated to include an additional intersection.

Okay, and the traffic study did not the original traffic study in June of 2021 did not include this property as part of that study.

It didn't anticipate development here at that time, but it was always added as future development.

Okay.

All right, those are my two questions for now.

Thank you.

And the goal is just to let everyone speak.

Uh just if I raise a hand you still has questions.

Right.

We'll come back the other way.

Commissioner Salish, would you like to continue?

Uh let's let's keep going around and then maybe some of them will be taken up in that time.

Commissioner Burns.

I'll make it actually quick.

It's not even uh uh really questions.

Um talking about the groundwater kind of issue, um, it does make me recall.

I I believe two years ago or so um we had a discussion, and I believe it was the lafferty property.

Um I recall there being some discussions about uh surface water and some other kind of things which it's like not ideal for you know to build on necessarily, but you gotta get rid of the water a little bit, etc.

Um, and I only mentioned it just because when we're looking at the final design and capturing that water in our drainage system and conveying it off into the pond, um it often doesn't take into account um in construction phase.

And so the moment we start disturbing the land uh that we start clearing the existing vegetation and um and removing trees and such things and and start leveling grading things out, um it's probably not surprising that we're seeing like uh drainage issues and water moving.

Hopefully, um it's not an issue by the time it's developed completely, but once they start opening that up, um that's something you guys probably keep in mind it it's it's gonna put water places that no one anticipated, and so um that kind of constructibility part of the drainage analysis is probably something here.

I'm guessing that yeah, when everything is done, all the curving is put in, all the the gutters and the drain pipe, it'll it won't be as much of a problem.

Um and that goes double for the lafferty property, but um it may be a few years before you get there.

So just uh keep that in mind.

Um there's methods to to help contain that or capture it, but it's uh it's not something that may come up in uh in design.

Um having worked in design, that's it's something uh to keep in mind.

Uh the other thing, I guess it's less in the question that point.

Um when we were talking about the densities and how you know this is kind of right on that edge, it's a little bit above maybe the frame, but if you combine it with adjacent kind of filings, it you know it it's reasonable.

Um there is some sensitivity, I think, over densities.

I I don't necessarily think that it's a problem.

Um getting a few more kind of houses in there that I think is is generally probably a good thing, but um just noting that when we're talking about the calculation of like the park and open space, and we're saying, okay, you know, this filing itself doesn't include any pocket parks, doesn't include any communion parks.

Um, but we combine that with adjacent filings.

I I'm not sure how we're defining some of these adjacent filing seven is really not adjacent, it's kind of far away.

Um and I mean filing an eight makes sense that it's directly abutting it, but um it seems like sometimes we're a little bit loose with kind of how we're calculating this.

It would have been nice to have like a small park at park, I think, in this section here, uh, since it's the kind of end point of the development.

Um you get the road essentially, so there won't be anything north of it, but um it's uh you're looking at that and then comparing that to um the other calculations.

What was the other one I had written down?

Park and oh, and then the housing, yeah, is calculated only with filing eight.

So it was a little bit of two different calculation methods, one for densities by the adjacent filing eight, but the park calculation including another filing is kind of adjacent.

It just um it it's kind of a little bit backing into that number, I think, but um in general, I I don't know that it's it's um it's it's an overall problem.

It's just an interesting thing to know using different methodologies to calculate um different things here.

Yes, and I'll note I didn't have Lafferty's pocket park potentially mapped onto this as far as adjacencies.

Um, and then I'll let Alex speak to there is a private park designated at the bottom of filing 11 that doesn't qualify for a pocket park requirements, but there is a private like amenity park planned, I believe.

Yeah, and that's why I figure between all of the filings and the the greater area of open spaces, it's just trying to get into these calculations.

It's like I know it's necessary to for the application, but it's kind of a little that's all yeah, it's not really a anything I think that requires a explanation.

Um you answered one of mine in the uh about oil and gas, so thank you.

And then the road connection Lombardi going into J Road.

Do you have seen some construction on Lombardy?

Is that connection happening in the near future?

What's the schedule on that connection?

So we try to get a hold of KB homes today to verify that.

Uh I think the town website says it's the end of September.

I drove out there before we came to the meeting, it's pretty close.

So I think there's some acceptance, and they still have the temporary road up, but it looks like it's asphalt curbing gutters in on it.

But if it's not the end of the month, it's soon.

Yeah, relatively soon relatively soon, yes.

The buildings go.

Yes.

And Lombardy goes all the way to the connections already there.

Once the roundabouts complete.

Yeah, I guess.

I was there a month or two months ago.

So it's moving fast.

Yeah.

I was there a month ago.

Okay.

Um and then I believe connection-wise, it looks like there's sidewalks connecting, especially to Red Hawk.

And there's pedestrian access throughout the area and through pile and eleven.

Yes.

Provided along Lombardy Street that connects north and south and also internally.

So the attempt was to connect internally east and west to the major kind of north-south thoroughfares and trails to the spine trail to the north, and also there's a major trail or uh eight foot concrete trail adjacent to the regional pond to the east.

So a lot of pedestrians actually up here.

Yeah.

I was on the spine trail recently.

So it's fun to see.

Um those are what I have.

You stole my question about the school's access.

So no, the other thing was just it says in the report that there will be a lot more or at least some more work done on the drainage as part of the preliminary plat and final plan.

And so I just encourage you to consider what was said before.

Yeah.

Oh, also note like mile high flood districts have been involved.

Yes, I saw that.

We spoke with them and they've been involved with the regional fund to the east.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Booth.

Um I'm gonna follow up on the parks.

Um again.

Um piggy back.

Um can we go to a or maybe the slide?

So the two pocket parks are the ones that are shown on this slide, right?

Yes, are those complete.

Um I believe those would be under the I'm going through checklists in my head.

Um those would be part of the initial acceptance for filing seven and eight.

I don't believe they were part of the like building permit release checklist.

So um I believe filing seven and eight are under building permit release, which means everything that would be of like public health and safety as far as public improvements have been done.

So all the roads are complete, but that might not mean the pocket parks are done.

So I can check on those as well.

Um because in addition to water or drainage, the the other hot topic this year is parks.

Yeah, so um is the town involved in these parks at all where they have to provide any of the funding.

No, these would all be developer paid for.

Um and then the HOA owns and maintains, I believe, pocket parks.

That is correct.

Yes.

So I don't believe the town would be on the hook for any of it, but we reviewed and approved it.

Okay.

Good.

Um the other one was kind of the streets and access.

So um Lombardi will take you out to J Road.

Does Tallene is that another access point into this neighborhood?

Uh yes, and Tallene goes all the way out to County County Line Road.

So that would also be your major way in.

Yes.

Okay.

All right.

That's it.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sowish.

So this was contemplated as uh previously filing number eight as future developments.

Um what was previously the maximum number of units allowed per the PD.

My understanding is since the 2001 Canyon Creek PD, it was designated for 275 for filing eight, which includes the subject area.

Okay, 275 per the PD.

Is there anything specific in the PD?

That uh correct me if I'm I'm wrong.

These are alley loaded products, correct?

Okay, yes.

Is there anything in the PD that allows alley loaded products?

Because that was not something that was added to our UDC until 2023 to allow for alley loaded?

Correct.

It was a portion of an amendment to allow for alley loaded of the PD after 2001 when it originally got approved.

I think 2008 amendment.

Eight or 10 added alley loaded and an alley loaded setback.

Did it apply to this filing?

Yes.

Staff, if you could confer on that one.

Immediately to the east is the regional detention pond, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

Is this the water quality of detention pond 1045?

That's referenced in the drainage report, I believe.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

With there was a note in there saying the existing site is considerably flat, which provides challenges for conveying runoff via the infrastructure to this pond uh with minimum depth and cover.

There is no proposed detention pond on the site.

The alleged design for water quality and detention will remain unchanged.

How exactly are you going to evacuate the water to these areas or what is currently proposed for moving the water to that with it being you know considerably flat land as indicating the drainage report?

We're piping most of it throughout the site to a water quality pond that's in the northwest corner of the regional pond.

That'll be a water quality pond for the run off the onesite.

Okay.

Um there was a comment from uh individual earlier.

I gotta ask the town attorney.

That was provided in public comment, not pertaining to this quasi-judicial matter.

Can I bring up an item from that public comment that was not pertaining to this?

Yes.

Okay.

Um there was a comment made about uh removal of a monolith from the RTD line.

Do you have any knowledge or understanding of what this might be referring to?

I do not know.

Okay.

Um there was in the second submittal, there was a variance request.

Um does staff know what the status is of the variance request that was issued in that second seconds middle.

Yes, I can clarify.

So at one point they were proposing underground detention, and that would have required a variance request.

That was denied, and there's no longer a proposal of underground detention.

So that was part of previous submittals, but not in the um application tonight.

Okay.

Um the last again, the last question pertaining to this is does the PD allow for the alley loaded product?

Um, because again, it was it was added to our UDC, but it was added in I believe 2023-2024.

Um it would have had to be explicitly noted in the PD if we could just verify that it was specifically for proposed future filing eight.

And if not, um we may need a PD amendment related to it.

So I do not see alley loaded townhome as a listed explicit use, but then I see an amendment for the setback to alley loaded garages, so I will still need to review that.

Okay.

What that means.

Okay.

So the uh Canyon Creek PD amendment number 10 was specifically to revise rear yard setbacks for alley loaded homes.

And that's what's noted is a new rear yard setback to alley loaded garages.

Um, but I do not explicitly see the word alley listed under the land use categories.

Um, I do not think we explicitly prohibit them, so I'm not sure how those two relate um this time.

It does change the setbacks that are permitted in terms of the distance correct.

Um I do not think we explicitly prohibit them, so I'm not sure how those two relate um this time it does change the setbacks that are permitted in terms of the distance correct if the alley loaded product requires it requires different setbacks, um zero foot uh lot lines on the sides to meet you know multiple lots, obviously, you know, with this townhome product.

Um obviously we have you know the access to the to the PD, which is pertaining to this specific item, um, and the setback for the principal buildings on filing number eight, which is noted as uh medium density.

Um it does have side putbacks for the side interior lot setbacks at five and zero.

Um it does say zero feet for attached buildings only.

Um so the rear um has 15.5 for alley loaded.

So are we in conformance with this with what is currently proposed?

Yes, I believe so.

Okay.

If we could just clarify, if not, it's not seems like it may need to be just a uh uh correction to the PD amendment potentially.

So as far as the use, I'll need to further understand if alley loaded townhome needs to be explicitly um allowed within the PD versus it just stating townhouse.

Um as far as the setbacks, that would be reviewed at site plan, which I previously stated would come back to planning commission.

So we did do a preliminary check of setbacks as part of just due diligence that we have proper lot sizes, but the setbacks are actually going to be reviewed at uh site plan application.

Um, but to the best of my knowledge, at this time they'd be able to meet all of those required setbacks.

Okay.

It's uh it's a very thorough PD in two pages, so I can understand.

So um, those are believe all the questions I have currently.

Thank you.

Any final questions?

No, all right.

Um time is now 7:43 p.m.

And I'm closing the public hearing and into commissioner deliberation.

Uh I'll just open the floor.

Anybody want to start?

Um, okay.

So um obviously want to make sure that this is in conformance with PD.

So I know staff has said that they're gonna check this over, and then we'll also have the site plan later on.

So um there'll be some time for due diligence to be brought there.

Um there's two concerns I have.

Uh first one is related to the traffic report.

Um as was noted in the Fox Tuttle letter.

Um, the original traffic report did not include the 81 units for filing 11.

The addition of the 81 units to a new total of 275 units.

One question would be whether this would trigger the prior TIS to be redone with the new land use totals for this area.

Specifically to this traffic report, this traffic report has come into question for Lafferty as well as filing seven and eight in the past because of exactly when this was actually completed.

This was completed on June 16th, 2021, which was um shortly after the pandemic, and it was completed at a time when school was not in session.

So one of the one additional recommendations that I would like to include is that a traffic report um be completed for this area prior to final plat.

So that's the first item.

Um the second item is in relation to the subsidence reports.

Um there are a total of we have the soil sampling, we have the mine subsidence, we have the geotechnical um, so 9J geotechnical report, 9G mine subsidence, 9L soil sampling, and then we have the Canyon Creek 11 subsidence uh that was completed as part of I think it was uh completing this review one.

And all of these, I do not see a single boring that has actually been completed within the main part of where we are going to have these buildings.

The only things that I can find are some soil samples that went down in borings one, two, three, four, twenty-five feet, and boring five, thirty-five feet.

So that is something that I would ask as an additional um recommendation for final plat as well.

And how deep?

In the interior for subsidence purposes.

So this was the Canyon Creek filing 11 subsidence.

That was the title of the item.

And this was along the outer perimeter.

In that report, they also said that the exact location could not positively positively be identified, and that previous investigations may have actually been incorrect.

So we are going to have a we are going to have buildings of a large size on that property.

So we we typically refer final plats to CGS as well.

So they will get another um shot at this.

And from what the applicant has stated, they worked closely with them to identify the boring sites.

And like we don't have people on staff with that particular expertise to evaluate.

Correct.

So we we do rely on CGS to guide um whatever additional information they might need.

Correct.

And I know that this is something that's an additional recommendation would go to the council, they can weigh in on it.

They can you know see what the validity is, validity is to that and take that recommendation or not.

Um so that's what I'd just recommend as an additional recommendation.

Um that of course the council could then take up on the other side.

And just for my understanding, I I didn't dig through all of the documents, but the you're talking about effectively doing a borehole in the middle of filing a minute.

Yes.

The other ones are outside of town.

The the ones that were completed in the past that were provided to us, they were completed um specifically on the Lafferty property, and they were completed in the Lafferty property south of the Lafferty property, and then east of the regional detention plot pond.

And then we had some soil samples that were completed throughout there, but again, they only went 25 to 35 feet down.

And then when we had the additional um subsidence report that was provided, it did get to a point where you could actually see, but it was very northwest corner, um, north and very east.

It was there's nothing that indicates the per the actual interior where all these homes are going to go, especially if we are going to have we have uh buildings of 15,000 or greater feet that are going to be coming before us, why we need a sketch plan, correct?

How many how many townhomes are the max attached?

Eight six, six townhomes.

Okay.

So we're going larger than we we normally do.

That's why it's triggering that.

So we're gonna be having a larger size than used to.

Typically, in these situations, we see um no more than 45, 55 feet in length, um, or should I say a hundred feet in length in in certain instances within the town.

Um, so if we are going to go beyond that, which triggers that other um application process, obviously we want to make sure that we have our due diligence met that we have no issues uh ahead of time.

And I again this is final plat because I know this isn't something the preliminary plat has to tackle right now, um, just as something as um whether this is brought as a condition or recommendation, and then the applicant can assuage the concerns there.

Um, but of course, again, because we are dealing with multiple units um tied together, that would uh be beneficial for this.

So any other comments for deliberation.

um whether this is brought as a condition or recommendation and then the applicant can assuage the concerns there um but of course again because we are dealing with multiple units um tied together that would uh be beneficial for this so any other comments for deliberation um so what you're saying is effectively what I'm hearing is uh a motion to approve with amendments if that's the right phrase and then the agreements would be the traffic study or provide a traffic a a new traffic study with with additional recommendations yeah or conditions essentially yeah yeah conditions condition yeah not not amendments thank you um so and to be clear you're asking for those to be done by the time the final plat comes prior prior to final plan DA so I know that those come together they don't have to obviously be done now they don't have to be done for the um the site plan I know the it this isn't something that you can say hey go do this right now and you get it done it takes some time um it could be that you have again I know that there's some documentation prior to nineteen ninety nine that may be available um so um again just something that's you know you may say this is something that actually that addresses these issues um so um but again um approval criteria to provide subsidence related borings um for the central interior portion of this property no we're we're sorry sorry we're we're doing commissioner deliberations staff is that something that is typical is that we're putting it into motion yeah I mean you can condition recommendation we'll have to have you come sign a new one that's fine I mean I sweet obviously the the you know again I'm just one of the five up here and no one was into but you know these these are the concerns that I have of course um it's up to this body you know all five of us to say that these are concerns so if you don't feel that they're concerns of course we don't have to have them as recommendations um personally this is say these are they're those are all typical things that staff would ask for and we would refer to CGS at final plat.

Correct um correct if you feel it's necessary to to make it as a part of your recommendation then that's fine but that is a part of what we do.

So point of information um the say plan comes after the final plat.

Correct so if you want this done by the for final plot it needs to be done in the next step it needs what it needs to be done in the next step after I think was you you had mentioned like it doesn't need to be done until final and final plat comes before correct by by final plan because that's where you have the development agreement.

So if there were anything to address in the traffic study also it would have to be addressed by final plat.

I'm just clarifying yep because you mentioned site plan and then final plat.

It's yeah yeah it should be yes reverse final plat first.

Yes yeah and if there are any foundation restrictions obviously they need to know that before they move on to site plan so yeah and that's it's not uncommon to have CGS but uh foundation restriction linked restrictions which on um flats when can I ask a clarifying question so when CSG comes out um what happened what what are they looking I mean they're not gonna do additional boring correct CGS yes sorry uh no they review um all of the materials that the the applicant gives them and then if they want additional borings they they work with the applicant to locate those.

It's the Colorado Geological Society.

Yeah they will and then just a question for the traffic study um if they do additional traffic study are you thinking there's gonna be a much larger impact because of the school like school was not in session during the original one the time period that it was done.

Yep I mean it's been it's been over five years during a you know immediately following a pandemic and we weren't still at um you know full capacity with with enrollment to the schools at that point and it wasn't even during the school year.

So and again this is something that has been brought up previously for other filings in this area as well um because of when this was completed.

I think that there we've had some public comment on traffic.

So I don't I don't I'm not opposed to that.

And then the only thing I had, which is already in the staff report, so it probably doesn't need to go into the resolution is the issue of the drainage, but that's already it seems like it's already planned, so I'm not sure it has to go into as a condition.

Do you agree?

I believe Ali had that outlined.

Yeah, she already has it in the report.

So clarify staff's condition was to rework access to the detention pond.

Yeah, so in the drainage section, you said there are a couple of different things that need to be done for conditional for a condition of approval.

Correct.

And so they have to be done anyway, so we don't have to add anything.

But I I do think to clarify, like, because I I saw some comments about that, and when you say access, it's just for for who to access.

So um, as part of staff's review, uh our operations and maintenance team looks at how they would be able to maintain a pond or inspect a pond on a future date, and the proposed access point would require our public works operations and maintenance team to travel quite a distance on the spine trail to enter the pond from the east side, and so they're requesting that the pond um have an access point for them to inspect it from the west side.

That would be a shorter distance to them for them to travel in order to look at the pond.

So um that wasn't captured in the civil drawings that were accepted with I shouldn't say accepted, were reviewed with a preliminary plat, and so they're asking for that to be reworked.

Um, but there would be additional drainage reports and review that would be part of the final plat, which includes the 100% civil CDs.

Yes, which could be here.

Don't have any other deliberation comments.

Does anyone have final deliberation thoughts and would like to make the motion?

But real quickly, uh final thoughts.

It the the applicant was correct in that this is the um as was initially proposed.

This is the final continuance of this full build out.

Um this would be the um diversity of housing that is required.

Um it is it fits within what is has been contemplated and also then abuts the um the metal arc community, I believe it is up there.

Um so it does provide that national uh natural um movement towards those.

So it does fit in there, obviously, just making sure that everything is you know T's cross, I's dotted.

Um, but I don't have any concerns um barring these these few items.

Yeah, I will uh to the motion to approve 25475 resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending the town approve the Canyon Creek filing number 11 preliminary platelinary plat.

And then the question is Commissioner Saw, which do you have specific wording for the condition you wanted to add?

Well, you have you're making the motion okay.

Yeah, um would you like me to make the motion?

Sure.

Track me.

I'll retract it and let him make it to the commissioner recognize for a motion.

Okay.

Um so motion to approve resolution 2513 resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that to town council approve the Canyon Creek filing number 11 preliminary plat with conditions um adding with an amendment adding in the additional conditions that a uh transportation impact study be completed, um a traffic study be completed prior to final plat, as well as um that a revised subsidence report be provided prior to do we want to go with the other one?

Final plot.

Yeah, we'll just say final plot.

Yeah, a second motion and a second.

Does anybody want to request a roll call vote?

Yes, please.

Secretary, please conduct the roll.

Commissioner Booth.

Yes.

Commissioner Sawwish.

Yes.

Commissioner Burns.

Yes.

Vice Chair Brodus.

Yes.

Chair Hampel.

Yes.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Um is now 801 p.m.

and we've concluded general business.

Uh we'll move on to staff reports.

We have thank you for your presentation.

We have item 25508 and overview of town plans, and over to staff.

Uh yes, you all requested at your last meeting in discussing possible expansion of roles of the commission.

Um some more information on the various plans of the town.

And so we compiled um those along with there's a chart that shows um the plan name, kind of a a description of the plan, uh the lead department, when it was last updated, and then when the update is expected, the next update.

So happy to answer any questions or provide more information next time if you guys want more.

Thank you.

Uh-huh.

I will say this is a great way of visualizing all these links that are on the TAS website.

That's a lot.

Yes.

It is.

It is a lot.

Do you know of any that are um sorry I have to oh see that yeah, it's open.

Uh do you know of any of these that are going to be revised or plan to be revised in the upcoming year or two, for instance?

Um I don't remember off the top of my head.

I'm sorry, and I have a ton of tabs open now with various uh reports and stuff.

Um so I know that like uh utilities was waiting to do some updates with the with the comp plan um update um we are planning a um a small update to the town center plan, but that would that would um be a PD amendment, so you all would see that of course um looks like sustainability, yes.

The sustainability plan that one's underway.

Um and I believe they're giving an update to council soon or did recently gosh maybe it was capital improvements that's that's not you anyway.

Capital improvements, right?

That's planning tends to not have a lot of capital improvements.

Yes, but we do we do participate.

Oh yeah, um yes, they provided an update to town council on nine two on the sustainability plan.

And I believe Chair Hempel, are you on the stakeholder?

Yeah, I attend the meetings.

Um we discussed a few things and I didn't write down my notes.

Oh, it's okay.

I just yeah.

Um so yeah, the the non-potable water strategic plan, the wastewater collection systems plan and the drought and water shortage supply plan are all planned for next year.

And then uh do we have a link to all of these plans or yeah, it's in the um agenda memo.

Should be.

You mean the actual plan?

The the link to these plans.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So I'm not seeing it in there.

It's um, gosh, I'm seeing the form.

I emailed our a list of town plans with the links to the plans can be found on the website.

Yes.

Yes, but it just isn't linked.

Yeah, okay.

I don't know why it's not showing up as a hyperlink because it was.

There's a link in there.

We got it.

Legisar does fun things, it just decides to put weird characters in and take out links.

Yeah.

So there are thoughts, comments.

I have a couple questions.

Um some of these, this is just to educate me.

Um, some of them show like a last update just the first one airport.

Um, last update 2016, next update 2031.

Like, is there a method to the madness or I know they've done some other um more targeted um plans for the airport, and that's probably why that one is pushed uh further out.

Um and we did we did coordinate with um with economic development on um the land uses in and around the airport for the comp plan as well.

So I think they felt that was kind of captured any updates that needed to happen was captured there for the time being, and then they did some strategic um plans.

I for I forget the names of them um dealing with like the runway that was closed, um and there was another one too.

Maybe it's not on this list.

There was an airport economic development study, and then there was also the strategic business plan, FB alternatives and rates study that were completed as part of it.

But not the master plan, it's separate.

Right, right.

And is that like a good assumption that when you see this list, like this is a master plan, kind of like the comp plan, hadn't been updated for years and years and years.

Is that is that kind of a apples to apples?

Yeah.

Um, like the first um chunk of plans are those kind of longer range um trip plans that look further out.

Yeah.

And then the other ones tend to be either more technical in nature or look at, you know, go deeper on a specific geographic area.

Yeah, yeah.

And um, my next question is, and you can tell me, we'll touch space on that in a few minutes, but um, I think I saw I was not able to watch the meeting last night, but I think I saw the agenda.

I think on the agenda it was maybe an item talking about the roles and responsibilities of the planning.

I was gonna bring that up during commissioner.

Okay, I'll wait.

Thank you.

Good enough.

Okay.

That's it for this thing.

Great.

Time is now 8 09 p.m.

and we'll finish off with commissioner reports and discussion.

I'll go around the table saying we've started.

Uh Commissioner Burns.

Yeah.

I don't.

Chris Relish.

Um I have a question for staff.

Uh at the end of the last meeting, you had said that there was uh plans for a uh there's should I say there's current outreach to the old town community, and there's the possibility of an old town sub-area plan.

Um has this been something that has been besides for obviously that has it been communicated or addressed with this body as to what exactly uh the intention is for the communications, why we're doing it, or what the ideas are of the potential of a sub-area plan.

I know that council has had uh you know 10-15 minutes of time discussion of that um back in March but um just curious if this body has since obviously I joined not too long ago.

Um I'm trying to remember I don't remember seeing anything.

I don't think so but um we to be clear we don't know if it will result in an area plan.

We're really just in the um beginning stages and the intention is to come with those findings to you all it'll probably be first quarter of next year um uh that we'll we'll have something to share with you and then kind of go into the next steps as far as what that looks like if it is an area plan or something else.

Yeah but if you want I mean we can have Josh come talk to you all.

I think it would just be very high level um what they're what what we're doing.

Yeah I mean it I obviously I can't speak for the rest of us but um you know hearing hearing from Josh and what it is that he why it is that we're moving down this path and what it is that he's seeing and you know what he's going to be doing or what our expectations could be um would definitely be helpful since obviously that has to intertwine itself and within the comp plan or be an offshoot of the comp plan and so I know that there's a lot that can go into just this little area right here.

So um yeah that'd be very helpful.

Okay.

And I have we met since the uh since the airport uh sorry the air fair no okay so uh the airfare was two Sundays ago um I think they had five or six thousand individuals who showed up uh not just residents those from around the community as well um it was so as highly attended and it was a great way to see what it is that the airport you know does there were helicopters airplanes fire trucks police cars drone shows um and uh a lot of the different boards and commissions were out there as well so it was it was very cool to see um you missed it sorry you got two years until the next one so um but I believe that is all on mine thank you I guess one of them well too late I have a whole laundry list here so I've got to be quick um first item is I gave the report to town council on the ninth however long ago that was uh we can change two weeks I don't know um and it went reasonably well it wasn't they were asking more about what the planning commission wants to do more and I just stuck with the the tried and true we need to talk more uh but talk about the strategic plans that we discussed um and then reiterated working with them in a uh a joint session to start with as we expand um and they were pretty receptive to that it was kind of a late meeting and then they went into executive session so they were happy glad uh commissioner Burns and Sowish were there to be my hype man so thanks for showing up on that note I did actually attend last night's meeting kind of as a resident but also thinking they may want to talk um and they did invite me up to their round table so I spoke briefly about um the roles and again reiterated um wanting to work on strategic plans but one of the things that really came up was the the joint session that we had talked about occurring sometime in January for affordable housing uh having effectively two items on that session where one of them is the portable housing and then also talking about expanded roles in more of an open format where we all get to throw ideas around and see what they like.

Part of last night Mayor Pro Tim Bell brought up potentially have a pointing commission oversee more um smaller items that are larger for administrative approval effectively but effectively giving us similar to our site plans where we would just get decision authority and it doesn't have to go to town council um so working with staff and getting that balance that it's going to be something that's brought up and uh I kind of I I don't know if I'll put it on the agenda for most meetings but I want everyone to keep in mind or just keep coming up with ideas and we can talk about it during commissioner comments um especially getting prepped for the meeting the joint session with that.

So working with staff and getting that balance that it's going to be something that's brought up and uh I kind of I I don't know if I'll put it on the agenda for most meetings, but I want everyone to keep in mind or just keep coming up with ideas and we can talk about it during commissioner comments.

Especially getting prepped for the meeting the joint session with County Alison.

So just keep that in mind as we move through the next few months because that's still tentative January but we'll see we'll see how that goes.

And then also last night Commissioner Broda says Vice Chair Brodus is officially allowed to be here and he was allowed to do correctly so um they extended this term to 27 as part of the the plan to rearrange pieces currently I'm 28 similar to Salish but um they're talking about moving them around so we'll hear more they gave direction to staff to change the terms to be hot years um kind of effectively keep um and booth lots of bees here the B team no sorry point of order rejected no offense intended we strike that from the record um the uh those would effectively stay 26 but the extensions or however that works would go for a three year term instead of a four year so that's what they discussed last night you're free to watch it but hopefully I saved you on and then one of the things on the presentations everyone had pictures so I think we should talk about having a group picture is we'll discuss that later it's completely backward um a team in the front B team in the back taking the picture we'll we'll have the the good looking people up front so you yeah yeah um and then how did everyone like the public hearing of me doing two questions and doing the rounds is that like that go back to one person just hammering out all the questions.

I liked it.

Yeah I think there's more people chance to ask questions.

And by the time it gets back to me lots I could scratch out a lot of that was always the problem when there's the error it's like man you guys took all the good questions.

Yeah I mean that you know I've seen many iterations of this now um you know it's I've I've seen that before it works well.

Um obviously just keep in mind for QJ items specifically allow all the questions to be asked by everybody because it's QJ you know but you know starting off like that yeah um I've yeah it works well I haven't seen that work not well so yeah I just wanted to my goal was to let everyone have a chance to talk so but to your point I didn't stop people that weekend around so that was um just keeping that moving so I I'll continue that as we go through items just uh keep things moving um try to be efficient um and then last at least on this list so far oh no there's two more sorry um one of the items that I have strong opinions on is why and CC emails um I one of the reasons I think it got brought up was on the home rule charter we brought in nine people who weren't necessarily part of town and weren't familiar with open records um had to do something in six minutes and six of them aren't really affiliated with the town anymore so it's kind of a whirlwind.

And one of the ideas that came up was BCC just so people if they accidentally hit reply all it doesn't but I think it's nice to be able to see that everyone involved and I think we all have been here long enough to know to reply directly not do serial meetings and all that sort of stuff.

So I if unless everyone else has a strong opinion um I'd be an I'd propose that we just do normal copying and then everyone responsible for applying properly does anyone have thoughts or we just we can try it and see what happens.

We can try it and see what happens.

See how many see how many violations we get before we get almost like I think I mean at least in my experience on the two years here.

I think we've been good about it before we started BCC.

So we my job has export controlled information, and I'm sometimes the export control police of telling people to not send technical information through email.

So I'm happy to start that if it gets out of control, then we'll go back to BCC.

I'd say um if you're not the one that it would be reply to just having you as the CC, that way you're in the loop of what's going on versus staff rather than forward back to you something.

Because if it's two, we're okay, but yeah more than two is have a question to staff you can copy me on it, yep.

Just have your conversation, read it, be aware.

Yep.

Yep.

And now the last one, thank you for entertaining me.

Um biscuit day is this Saturday.

I'll be helping set up, and if you're there before 9.45, I may serve some six.

So I think all the volunteer opportunities are closed, but come and get some biscuits.

And that's everything on our agenda.

Quick thing is is there going to be a meeting?

Oh, yeah.

I don't know.

Yeah, we we don't have any public hearings scheduled uh for October 1st.

Um I think we need a meeting because we are scheduled to have one, or at least we have something on the advanced agenda for yes.

Yes, we do.

Okay.

So we'll we'll catch all October 1st meeting, thank you.

And then uh see you in a month.

Commissioner, you'll do the motion.

Can I do this?

Motion to adjourn, please.

Second second.

All right, that's enough seconds to count it.

Time is now 8 22 p.m.

and we are adjourned.