Good evening and welcome to the November 19th, 2025 regular meeting of the Town of Erie Planning Commission.

The time is now 6 30 p.m.

and I'm calling this meeting to order.

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Will the Secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth.

Here.

Commissioner Burns.

Here.

Commissioner Dreckman.

Here.

Commissioner Sawish.

Present.

Commissioner Baham is absent.

Vice Chair Brodus?

Here.

Chair Hemphill.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have an agenda before us this evening.

The staff have any changes.

None tonight.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who'd like to make a motion on tonight's agenda?

Motion.

Second.

It is Booth and Dreckman.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

The motion passes unanimously.

Um this brings us to approval of the November 5th, 2025 point of commission meeting minutes.

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

Motion.

Second.

It is Booth and Burns.

Motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

This brings us to public comment portion of the meeting.

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

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

I have no one in the waiting room and no one signed up for general.

Thank you.

And I will do my spiel later.

Moving on to public business.

We have two items on this agenda for general business.

Again, my goal is to have everything finished by 8 30 tonight.

Similar to our last public hearing, we're gonna do two questions as we get into our questions, and then we'll go back around to finish all the questions.

Make sure we get them all in, but want to hear from everyone first.

And the other item we have is um oh no, I'm gonna do that next.

So the first item on our agenda is 25604, a public hearing resolutions of the planning commission recommending approval of a site plan and special review use for the Erie Police Department station expansion with a condition.

There will be two votes for this item, one for the SRU and another for the site plan.

Um after deliberation, wrote up a nice document that gives us all the wording, so we don't have to uh dig around for it.

So whoever wants to make the motion will just pass this down and you'll be able to read from the script.

So um we'll do that.

The time is now 6 33 p.m.

and I'm opening the public hearing.

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

Thank you.

Good to see you all.

I think it's been a month or two since I've done in front of you.

Uh this evening I have the Erie Police Department expansion uh special review use and site plan.

And this project requires uh both applications, the special reuse and the site plan.

And this is sort of similar uh if you remember the uh fire station that came through, a different zoning category, but same process.

So uh typically, you know, a site plan um comes to you all for a decision.

In this case, since it's also tied to a special reuse, uh, you all will make a recommendation and then it goes to town council for final decision.

So same same situation here.

Tonight as typical, I'll give you some background, get into the uh details of the proposal, and then walk through some of staff's evaluation and finally get into the approval criteria and decision.

I'm sure you all are familiar.

The uh current PD station is at uh corner of Tolene and County Line Road.

Uh, you can see the creekside neighborhood to the west, and then the um sort of the future town center area to the south there.

And a little street view to give you some extra context.

So the uh I guess clockwise from the top left uh moving to the top right.

The uh this is sort of looking southeast down to lean.

Uh those street trees will remain there.

So you can see uh the some of the topography that the site deals with.

Uh the next two, so looking sort of southwest and northwest across the site.

Uh in this case, you're looking from county line road and the uh landscaped area that you see in the foreground there will remain as well.

That's uh landscaping, and it's also the uh stormwater detention.

The comp plan acknowledges the current use of this uh parcel as public quasi public, and that's anticipated to remain.

So it is uh that category in the comprehensive plan.

In terms of zoning, this is uh CMU, which we we don't have a lot of actually in the town.

Um in the CMU zoning, it does allow for public safety stations, but only as a special review use, which is why that's part of the application this evening.

Staff also find that this proposal is consistent with a couple specific policies in the comp plan.

Uh one being continue to maintain and create public facilities at a high standard to ensure Erie meets the needs of current and future residents, and of course, align with and update the uh Erie Police strategic five-year plan as needed.

I'll get into some more details of the proposal now.

Uh focusing just on the use itself.

Uh so this is classified as a public safety station under the UDC, uh, which as I mentioned is a special reuse under the CMU zoning.

Uh, this new addition would uh give the EPD uh room to grow and continue serving Erie at a high level, and of course it operates uh 24-7, seven days a week, and all the chief also uh is here tonight.

So uh I'm sure he'll talk about that more in the applicant presentation, sort of the functions and the uh the use of itself.

Moving into the site plan.

So, as you can see, the uh sort of reddish gray color is the existing building, the brighter red are the addition areas, and you also hopefully notice here the expanded parking area.

So there'll be more public parking uh and also new or expanded uh officer and staff parking, and then another key feature is uh fencing that will enclose that uh officer and uh staff parking.

Uh and I guess while I'm on this, I'll also mention the access points that the facility currently has will remain uh in location.

Uh a little breakdown of some of the key features and how it relates to applicable standard.

So the building existing building is just shy of 18,000 square feet.

Uh the addition will total a little over 30,000 square feet, not 17,000 square feet.

I apologize for that confusion.

Uh, and the that brings the total of the facility to just under 50,000 square feet.

Uh now there's no uh lot we don't regulate lock coverage or FAR in the zone district.

Um so there's no no applicable standard in that regard.

In terms of building height, currently the building is about 26 feet, and it'll go up to 33 and a half.

Uh the zone district actually allows for up to 45 feet, so we're uh well short of that.

Parking, uh, you can see it exceeds the minimum parking standard.

Uh in terms of landscape area, uh, landscape area, as you probably could tell from the site plan, does decrease a little with the addition and the new parking area, but it still meets more than meets the minimum landscaping standard.

Uh and we also don't have a uh maximum percentage for hardscape, but you can see that goes up.

Now I'll get into uh a little bit more of the staff review and our evaluation.

Uh so the architecture, I'm sure it's a little hard to tell on these slides.

I think the uh applicant team has some better renderings that they'll show, but the materials here are designed to be compatible with what's out there already.

So you see a lot of uh sort of textured concrete, um, some of the architectural metals, uh, same sort of color palette that you see out there today.

And so that's the intent is to be consistent with what's there.

Uh another key feature or sort of key design um decision that was made is the addition will be two stories.

Uh however, for the most part, it's a flat roof form, and so that helps sort of keep the perceivable scale down uh and view impacts to a minimum to the extent feasible.

As I mentioned, there will be a perimeter fence, but uh, we're not looking at like a chain link or barbed wire situation.

It'll be uh uh extruded aluminum fence, I believe.

And so it's uh, but it's designed and colored to sort of mimic wood, so it'll be more uh more durable in that regard than wood fence, but it uh it'll have the appearance of a wood fence.

And new landscaping will also replace the uh landscaping areas that will be removed for the addition and the new parking.

Uh you saw this graphic already.

Uh again, I'll mention yeah, the access point.

So the access point for the facility that's off tallene uh will remain, and that'll be sort of the main um public entrance, or not sort of, it will be the main public entrance, and then the access point off of county line road will be for staff and officers only.

Uh and that will be uh uh a gate will allow entrance through that fencing uh a little bit back from the street and from the property line.

Um what was the other thing I was gonna mention?

Sorry.

Uh oh, I I was gonna mention so the um those of you that have attended trainings or sort of events at the uh police station are probably aware that the public parking today is pretty limited, and uh currently overflow parking happens on Tulene.

So the hope would be that with this expanded parking for the public, uh that would not need to occur anymore.

So that's one of the one of the improvements planned.

Uh now I'll get into the approval criteria.

So we have two different sections of approval criteria, one for the special review use and one for the site plan.

Uh staff do find that the Erie police station, Erie Police Department station expansion, special reviews and site plan both comply with the uh relevant approval criteria and recommend that the planning commission adopts a recommendation of approval to town council with the following condition.

And this is sort of our standard uh condition just to be sure if there's anything that comes up that we need to correct before town and town council that we have the ability to do that.

So that is all that condition is there.

We did meet the public notice requirements for this hearing this evening.

Also, the applicant held a neighborhood meeting back in July.

Uh some of the questions that came up were about the the fencing, um, how the new building being two stories instead of the existing one, uh, would impact views.

Uh and again, yeah, questions sort of about the building massing, uh, what decisions were made to uh bring the design to two stories.

And so the applicant can talk through some of that as well.

And with that, I will hand it over to the applicant.

Um let you all run.

Sorry, I think Adam's pulling it up as we oh, that's you, okay.

And then let's see, I can I guess that's pretty full screen.

Uh do you want to thank you?

Gaming commissioners, uh, Chad Alexander, town facilities manager.

Um really excited to bring this project before you today.

Um, this is a much needed uh expansion as Harry alluded to in order to provide continued high-level service for the as you know, uh growing town.

Um, this expansion is needed.

And um, you know, I'll get into I'll let Chief actually talk about some of the metrics.

But on a high level, um again to maintain that high quality service, really the space is the limiting factor, and it's a limiting factor in terms of the number of officers and also um unsworn staff that can be hired.

And so um, you know, this this expansion really sets the uh department up for growth uh really for uh the full build out of the town.

And uh I'm gonna introduce um our design partners uh with us tonight in the audience.

We have uh D2C architects, uh they're the architect of record for this project.

Uh to my right here is Nicholas Raleigh.

Sorry, Rayleigh, sorry.

Thank you, um, he's the uh uh with uh professional engineering consultants and so the civil uh package of the site submission the applicant for this uh this site uh plan application.

Um as I mentioned, this building was designed in 2012 for 50 officers, and so uh very quickly uh with the town growth.

Um, all the space that uh would have been any kind of uh growth space was used up with uh uh staff space.

So um so it shows some metrics here for uh the population back in 2023 was about 34,000.

Uh we're just over 40,000 now, I believe, and um we're at uh 48 officers and 11 non-smore staff, so we're over that 50 um total right now.

And and uh in the uh department, you'll see that any storage space has been converted into an office.

Um they've uh optimized, let's say that facility as much as possible, and this expansion is needed.

So with the town population uh projected to go between 60 and 80,000, depending on you know the metrics you uh you look at.

Um, that's possibly double the the current population.

So uh with Erie uh police department's future staffing projections in order to serve that population, this uh size of an expansion was needed.

Um, as Harry mentioned, it's a proposed two-story addition uh about 31,000 square feet just under, and uh renovation of the existing and just under 18,000 square foot facility.

Um you mentioned also the site alterations, and one of the uh really important improvements is the secure parking for the police staff.

Um chief will maybe talk about this a little bit, but uh it's not unusual for the public to literally walk through the parking lot where police cruisers are just about to go out on a call, so not a not a good situation, and this will help with that.

Um we also expand the the public parking as Harry mentioned, and one of the things that will help is we're actually moving municipal courts uh over to this facility, and so that allows that square footage to also be utilized still as a community space, but uh, and so you know that increased parking for community events.

Um I kind of outline the the phasing of this project, uh, phase one A will call it are the site alterations.

We're anticipating about three months, pending obviously uh recommendation from from uh planning commission, and then phase one B is the addition about 14 months, and uh phase two would be the renovation of 10 months.

So we're looking at a late 2027 completion for the overall project.

Uh this just kind of outlines uh the project timeline as I mentioned, uh starting with when we kicked off the project with pre-design efforts, January 2024, up to right now where we're at, which is this this site plan application, obviously, and um construction documents phase.

So um we would be looking to move forward uh with that first phase 1A in uh January of 2026, and um again supports the town's growing uh population.

Uh we would maintain the existing facility operations during construction.

Um, so it's a phased approach where the addition is completed.

The police department staff would move into that uh addition, and then we switch gears and renovate the existing facility.

And as Harry mentioned, um, it's an effort to preserve the integrity of the the current architecture and blend in with the the neighborhood as uh the current facility does and match some of those same aesthetics.

And with that, I'll turn over to the chief to talk through a little bit more of the why behind it.

Commissioners Lee Mathis, uh Chief of Police.

I'll make this quick.

Uh, we just wanted to give you a little idea of why.

Why are we building this 34,000 or 30,000, whatever square footage expansion to our police department?

Do we really need it?

Uh our calls for service over the last year have gone up 20 percent.

Our population has gone up eight percent, and our crime reports have gone up 18 percent.

Uh during that time, we've added officers, and as as Chad mentioned, we built this this building, we moved in in 2015.

Here we are 10 years later, asking you we need to build a bigger, because when we moved into this building, there was 23 officers.

We've grown now to 48.

We actually got another officer approved last night in the 26 budget to 49.

The buildings built for 50.

One of the things we did not anticipate when we moved in in 2015 was the growth of our civilian staff.

We have added co-responders, which were not a thing in 2015, but they are absolutely vital to what we do now.

We have added a victims advocates unit that used to be handled by the sheriff's offices in each county, and the sheriff's office have stopped doing that, but we are still mandated by by law to have victims advocates, so we have added those.

So we've had a larger growth in our civilian staff than we anticipated in the building.

So we actually have 60 60 some 60 employees in in the building now.

So Chad mentioned that we had absolutely um repurpose some of those places.

We skip that one.

Oh, yeah, I got it.

And then um obviously with the re increase in calls for service, you can see all those numbers there.

Um our investigative cases have assigned have gone up.

We've got five detectives working at a very small office.

Uh, we have a code officer, one code officer, and he does not have an office.

Uh our victim crime call outs have gone up, obviously, with the increase in crimes.

Our co-responder response has gone up 64% in the last year, and our budget has gone up five percent.

Not that you guys can help us with that, but maybe you can.

Maybe you can.

Uh, just to give you a comparison, uh, just so you know that we're not over staffing here in Erie.

I want to give you an idea of of what other departments look like.

And this is the number of officers per thousand population.

Not always the best way to uh staff a police department because you want to look at calls for service, but we'll look at that here maybe in a minute.

But just so you know, Erie currently has 1.3 officers per 1,000 residents, and you can see the other the communities on there that are staffed way ahead of us.

The national average is about 2.5 officers per thousand.

And that's because oftentimes you have to staff for what may happen in public safety.

You can't just staff for the number of calls you have, because first of all, in our community, they keep increasing.

And second of all, there's always that what if out there.

What if I have two critical incidents at the same time?

I have an active harmor incident and a major traffic accident or a domestic violence.

So that's why you have to kind of staff up based on population, not just calls for service.

Um if you're wondering about square footage per officers, we're actually doing not bad right now.

Uh we have 374, but you can see some of the newer, some of the Parker, Firestone, Windsor, they all have departments that are a little bigger than us.

Um, and and they have more square footage per per officer than we currently do.

And so we want to get up around that 600 to 800 range um as we grow and keep that there so that officers have the space to work, package evidence, do interviews, do all the things that go along with with being a police officer.

Um is that my last one?

It is now is Elvin gonna come up here.

Yeah, okay.

I'll have Elvin come up from D2C, our architects, and just talk about how we kind of got to where we are with the design of the building right now.

Good evening.

So uh from the architecture point of view, we we interviewed the uh the PD.

Uh we had a program.

We kind of took that program, we uh took it a little bit further.

We actually had some ideas of what we could provide, but then once we had that kind of ideas, we actually had a uh a workshop where we actually invited all the different departments on the PD and we kind of went around asking what their needs were, how'd they work best and what would the flow would need.

So, based on those feedback that we got from the whole department, we actually came up with a floor plan.

I guess I'm driving it here.

I can do that.

Oh, you are yeah.

So we uh we determined that we we could we would need it to redesign the first existing floor, and then we would need to do a two-story building to accommodate all their needs.

Um the reason for the two stories that because we also needed some parking requirements on site that we could not really take all over the whole site.

So the two-story came up uh pretty efficient.

Um was critical on that or on that part was to actually keep some of the existing infrastructure, mechanical rooms like that.

We absolutely keep the uh uh community room so that the PD could still you know provide that to the uh to the town, and then we also tried to develop the floor plan so that we could face it and create some of the critical parts that they need, like the um Sally Port and Holding, have those built in before we actually go back and renovate the existing facility.

So again, trying to be sensitive, the fact that we had a phase project.

Um and then on the second floor, we created more of a uh flex space that that would allow us to actually move in staff while we were renovating the existing space.

Um what was critical too on for the PD was to actually how the staff interact with the public.

So we have a uh still have the public access at the same location, so people are used to that.

We didn't change that at all, but we still have a kind of separation for staff and public.

Um as far as the architecture on the on the site.

We went from we increased the parking, we provided the uh the secured parking, as Harry mentioned earlier.

Um as far as the um public spaces, we went from 21 to 51, I think it was.

So we kind of double it, and we went from 50 spaces for the staff to about 103, so almost double it.

Um again, trying to future proof the uh facility, so we won't have to come back and revisit that.

Um the next uh slides you can see on the left hand side that's the existing building.

So there's some elements that we kept.

You have the wood element on the front that did not change.

We have some slope ceiling or roofed lines.

We actually tried to duplicate that on the uh future building, but we kept the same concrete kind of construction, same colors, same textures, same wood that's being carried over to the new two-story building.

What that allows us to do was to not just create a box, but to actually have um some elements that kind of break that box apart, you know, either by changing the colors or we have a little bit of a different height changes as we go from you know on that box.

Um this is kind of looking um that's looking west, I think it is.

So northwest, yeah, northwest.

So this is uh entry for this uh for the uh police, but on the background you can see some houses, right?

Which is kind of sit higher a little bit.

So we knew that was there, we were trying to be sensitive to that.

How do we take their concerns and accommodate uh the PD needs?

So in the next slide, you can see we have a walking path already that exists in there that is not being removed that stays.

We are working with the landscape.

You can see the fence that we have for the PD.

That's an eight-foot fence, but what we're doing is actually we're kind of working with the same geometry of the uh of the sidewalk.

So it's not a straight fence that goes all the way across.

So there's some ondulation on it.

And then from the on the next slide, so you can see that's a view that you would get from one of the houses that has two stories to it.

So looking that into it, that two-story building, we try to break it up, like I mentioned earlier, so it's not just so um the gray box.

There's some colors that we add into it.

We didn't go to the full height that we're allowed, we were a little bit lower.

We do have RTU screens to hide all that equipment, and we still have some of the same language that the 16 building has, like the slope roofs and the texture on the building.

So, yeah, I guess I'll uh wrap up with uh just the next steps.

And so um, this obviously is the planning commission hearing.

Um the outcome of this uh we have on the agenda for December 9th, uh town council meeting for SDP SRU approval.

Um then uh December 2025, we would apply for uh stormwater quality permit.

Um if uh the site plans approved, and uh that would allow us for to mobilize for early site work uh mobilization the first part of January.

Um we would submit then uh the 100% construction documents uh for building permit approval in January, uh hoping to mobilize fully for the the building permit or get uh for that uh building permit and then full project mobilization.

So thank you for your time tonight.

And now we'll just uh accept any questions that you might have for us about this project before we do that.

Um thank you for your presentations.

Time is now 6.58 p.m.

And we'll move to public testimony.

Uh is there anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience for comment?

Um we do not have anyone in the waiting room or in person signed up.

Anyone forget to sign up?

Okay, I didn't want to mention I forgot one person uh with RVI landscape architecture, Melanie Carpenter is also with us tonight in the design team.

So thank you.

Um we'll continue on.

We'll go to commissioner questions.

Like I said, we're gonna start with two, do the loop and then go back around.

Anyone want to volunteer to start or should I pick someone?

I can go.

Commissioner Booth.

Um I'll do my easy ones first.

Um I think when we talked about the um that this, I think somebody said that this will take us to the full build out of the town.

Is that correct?

That's the goal, yes.

I think with this uh staffing-wise, we feel like that would be that um I I would preface by saying I think a chief would echo this.

Yeah, can I I'll clarify on that a little bit if I can, I'll just so this will get us to over a hundred officers.

Depending on what our population is at build out, we may need more than that, but we're also going to need because of our geography, a substation or two, depending on where that population grows.

This location is great.

It's centrally located right on county line.

Right now we have about equal access to both sides of town.

But as we grow and that population grows, maybe in the northeast, we're out by I-25.

We're gonna need substations where we put officers out there and they can respond from there because the response times will continue to grow as traffic increases, our developments increase, and those things.

So this will be a great centrally located main station for the Erie Police Department, I believe, for the next 20 to 30 years.

Okay.

Perfect.

Um next easy one.

Parking minimums.

Um I think does that include the employee parking or just the new there was a slide.

Let me yeah, sorry, let me go back to the is this touch screen now.

Uh if you can go back to my PowerPoint.

And then scroll up to the table.

That one.

Yeah, that one.

Yep.

Uh so that's just calculated by the total square footage.

So uh that that minimum is the uh the minimum calculated just on the total square footage.

So not uh, I guess not distinguishing between public and officer.

So that 150 minimum doesn't matter if it doesn't need to be just um public.

It can be the combination of both of those.

Correct.

Yeah, the code code doesn't specify between the those two.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'll start.

Start with us.

Thank you.

Um let's go down the line, Commissioner Sowish.

Okay.

Um the proposed fence around uh the parking lot.

Um what what is the material that we're gonna be using for that or proposed material?

Extruded aluminum, I believe.

Okay, yes.

Okay, so question for you on in the UDC.

Um, so we're proposing a six-foot fence, correct?

So we do have in the UDC that's um it is four-foot fences around parking lots.

Now, if it's outdoor storage, we allow six to eight, but it can't be metal.

So, how are we gonna be doing a six-foot fence?

Is that a request that's being made in this application to allow?

It is.

There's um, let's see if I can find the code section.

There's a code section that requests or that allows um through the special review use process a request for a higher fence, and it can be that can be sort of a packaged request with the special reviews that can be approved through that application.

Okay, so the SRU is also requesting that as a deviation away from the current code.

Correct.

Okay.

Correct.

Which which I think I should make more clear.

So I appreciate that.

Yes, please.

Yeah.

Um, and then um the million dollar question or uh upwards of millions of dollars question.

Um there is uh let me take a step back.

Uh when this when this building was originally built, there were many geotechnical issues that had to be addressed and resolved.

And if I am understanding correctly, the way in which this building, the current building was manufactured, was very different from many of the other buildings throughout town.

So first part of this is if you could um tell me about what it was that was seen in the past and what had to have been done, what had to be done to actually build the building and literally put up the sides.

And I know that there's one individual who watched this, so might be able to answer some of that as well.

Yeah, I may defer to the applicant and chief on that one.

Yeah, I'll I'll take a shot.

We'll see what we can come up with.

So you're correct.

There were there were highly expansive soils on there, which were required a lot of excavation to get us to be able to build on that site.

And the the slab was poured, there's caissons that go down to the bedrock, and then the walls were poured on top of the concrete slab, and they tilted them up into place.

Um it was unique construction at the time, but I understand it's been used quite a bit like that uh since then.

One advantage we have is that the contractor that we identified to do the expansion is the same contractor that did the original building.

And so they're aware of all the challenges that come with the construction as is now, and and they believe that they can do this project as designed.

Okay, so I'm gonna continue on if you don't mind, Chair.

Go for it.

Um the idea is something similar to what we had to do previously in terms of how this building is going to actually be manufactured because of what we experienced last time, very similar in nature or similar ideas in terms of what we're going to do to um deal with those expansive soils.

Uh Mr.

Sandwich, yeah.

That if I can clarify too, I think it it uh we're we're basically replicating the foundation system uh for the existing building.

So that we've seen that system hold up very well since 2015 when it was finalized, and um the the rammed aggregate pierce system addresses those uh classical soils that uh that we we see in on some on the site.

So yes, it does uh, and in fact, that will help uh I'll let the architect maybe weigh in on this, but uh it helps with differential uh settling when you have the foundation systems that are are the same or similar next to each other.

So yep, you're right on.

Um, as far as the construction of the building, the uh existing building is called a tilt up, so all the concrete was poured in there, and then they just tilt it up.

Um, we don't have the room to do that on site, so we're bringing in precast panels.

So that makes it a lot more efficient to bring panels that are already done and just kind of put them all together.

But you know, it's the same foundation that we had used in the first phase.

Okay.

All right, I think I've met my two questions, so I'll continue.

Thank you.

Uh we'll go to Commissioner Dreckman.

Um approximately how many public events are there per year that that parking lot's actually with the courts moving, it will reduce considerably, but we still have you're asking per year.

I would guess anywhere between 20 and 30.

Okay, and so out of the 159 total proposed, how many of those are public parking?

55.

55.

And that you feel like would be enough for the events you guys are hosting.

Yeah, we we hold a uh community academy, we do a youth academy, we do Halloween safe stuff.

That's kind of the popular one.

There's a lot of people that come there, but currently I think we have 26, 24.

I'm not sure.

It's in the 20s, and and it fills up really quickly, but I think with 50, that's usually really good.

The community academy runs around 20 to 30 folks, the youth academy might be a little over 20.

Um, but how we we'll still have our busy times for like our uh prescription drug take back days, we do those there too.

Uh but I think 50 will be sufficient.

Okay.

This is not my area of expertise, but my stepfather was a police officer for 30 years, so I do know the importance of uh updated large facilities.

So it looks great.

That's all my questions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Burns.

Um I know it was mentioned that um you know it's gonna be phase construction with this because the proposed parking is essentially on top of that existing public parking, and in the green space that's gonna be kind of further west.

Is there um gonna be sufficient parking during construction while you're basically redoing all of the parking because it's the majority of the parking public hand staff besides Tallene.

So I'll take a shot at that one too.

And no, there's not.

Um, we're actually going to a lot of our fleet we are going to send home with our officers.

We're going to give them take-home cars to get those fleet because we have currently we have around 20 or so marked patrol cars.

And we're going to send those home with officers.

When they come, we're we've phased it to where we have on-duty parking on the south end of the building, which that's where their main access will be, especially during phase one.

And then they're going to open up the public parking lot first around March of 26, or as soon as they get it done.

And then we'll start using that lot for public and us.

It's definitely going to be inconvenient for a couple of years, but but we've got some phased parking that we're going to use and some plans on how to get the parking out of the area that we're parking now.

Okay.

And I think I mentioned this in a different hearing.

Um, but it's important to consider the phasing during construction, um, especially for capacity parking.

Yeah, and I think that's been our biggest or one of our biggest challenges is how do we phase that uh with with no parking for basically three.

You'll have a significant number of construction vehicles as well, and perhaps a lay-down area, et cetera.

So uh I was just curious.

Uh I I understand the retaining walls on the west kind of limit of the parking lot because of uh where it butts up to the residential.

Um is there a reason why putting retaining walls along the south side along the existing parking?

So there is currently a retaining wall on that south side, and so what we're doing, uh Alvin speak a little bit more about this or actually Nick.

Um is uh some modifications to that, uh, primarily due to some of the fencing, and there are easements in that area.

So yeah, good evening, Commissioners.

Along the southern side of the property, there's existing dry utility easements for underground electric and fiber, so on and so forth.

One of the considerations with retaining walls is proper backfill and compaction upon its foundation.

And uh in order to leave those utilities undisturbed, those retaining walls have been uh designed to be just offset a little bit further, so you'll see how the parking on the southern portion of the property there comes a little bit further to the north.

That's to leave existing dry utilities undisturbed, and uh it just it mimics and ties into that existing retaining wall.

So it allows for a continuous grade along the parking and less encumbrance to we're not necessarily creating a significant grade difference.

No, along the southern portion of the property, those walls are four feet high.

Okay, that's yeah, I was just interested by uh the existing it didn't look like it was changing very much.

So okay, thank you.

Let's move to thank you for paying attention.

Um, in the slide that was before that had the pink for the new areas, because one thing that changed from what we'd seen before was the area in the front, um, which I thought was that where the municipal no core was in the other side.

All right, so right now that's just an empty space.

Uh Commissioner, uh that is actually uh where the uh trash pickup is right now.

So the answers are it's a covered trash enclosure.

So all right, so it's not a major okay.

Um some of the other questions are already answered.

So you are significantly increasing the hardscaping.

Is that gonna be porous or I know you're also increasing the size of the detention pond?

Is that because of the uh commissioner, the size of the detention pond will not actually be changing?

Oh the existing regional detention pond that is currently there at the police department site has adequate capacity to support this expansion and these new impervious materials.

So the new pavement will not be porous.

Okay, but what we did is look at that existing detention pond and uh calculated out that it does have the capacity to maintain release rates and okay, uh yeah, take on the increased amount of storm water.

Okay, thanks.

Those are my two for now.

Okay, we're being good.

Good work.

Um I'm just digging through the treatment.

Maybe I'll ask that later when I have more idea.

There is on the access road from county line there in the site plan, there's like a gravel uh road that's going into the detention area.

Um I didn't see that on like the renderings or not much explanation.

Can you explain what that gravel road is doing and what it's there for?

Uh that gravel road is to support maintenance within the detention pond.

Over time, we'll see that uh stormwater is discharged into the detention pond.

Sediment will accumulate within the four bays, and we might see minor bits of erosion after large storm events occur.

And what that does is it provides a stable surface at a lesser slope for that maintenance equipment, such as a small excavator to get into the detention pond or a pickup truck for for maintenance personnel to remove that sediment and keep the pond functioning as designed.

Okay.

Um and then bike parking.

It looks like there are four or five spots for the public, and then for some reason four outside in the locked.

I guess that could be for the offices biking into work.

Um is that I don't think we have any code minimums.

Is that a consideration?

Are there current bike spots there that are used regularly?

Is there um yeah, what what was the logic behind the number for bike parking spaces?

He has to ask this because I know that's my bikes.

The I I can take that on it.

Uh maybe they can jump in if I don't answer it correctly.

But the uh uh minimum bike parking requirement is calculated as a percentage of the off-street vehicle parking requirement, which I don't know the logic to it exactly, but um but but again, yeah, we don't actually have any anything that would speak to sort of the distinction about whether it would be public or or employee-based.

Uh it's just a raw percentage.

So I think that's more up to maybe chief thinking about sort of how officers versus public may use the.

Yeah, we have some officers that live locally and bike and work, but they usually bring their bikes inside the police department, especially because we don't have secure parking.

There's nowhere really to do that.

Um up front, I don't even know if we have bike parking out front.

Am I wrong, Chad?

Do we have some?

Huh?

I think the race.

Well, there's some in the plan, but I don't know.

Right, right, right.

I'm not sure currently if we have, and all I'm saying is that when we do get bikers there, they they they need the part.

We don't get it often.

Let's just put it that way.

It's probably because if they leave their bike there too long, we take it and put it into evidence system.

All right.

Thank you.

Those are my two.

We'll go back to Commissioner Booth.

Um enclosed parking for um, is that is that being expanded at all, or is it just the public is being expanded?

The secure side for yes, that is also increasing the number of spaces that from current.

Okay.

And then this might be a staff question.

Um the renovation of the existing.

Is that included in the consideration this evening?

Is that really separate?

Um it's it's been included in staff review in terms of uh compare or evaluation of certain standards like uh, or maybe not certain standards, but all standards in terms of parking, um, all the utility considerations take into account the in total uh the total total square footage.

Um the special review use is uh I suppose the special reuse would be an approval for the entire building and replace the previous.

So there is an approved special reuse for the existing building and the existing square footage.

And so this new special reuse would approve or would subplant and replace that approval so the entire square footage would be included in that.

I don't know if that's exactly your question.

Yeah, I think that's two.

Oh, you can keep going.

I'm good for now.

I'm good for now.

Okay.

Commissioner Sowish.

Okay, I'm gonna go back to the ground.

Um just quickly for staff.

Um for I know it's eerie as the applicant with I know, yes.

Um staff on the planning side.

Um did we by chance receive a geotechnical for substance and undermining?

We did.

So we have a geotechnical subsurface subsurface exploration program uh that was generated earlier this year in 2025 for this project.

Okay, and I think um applicant materials number two.

Yeah, yep, sorry, that's what I was okay, and that is the applicant materials number two.

But that was going down to a depth of no more than 35 feet approximately, correct?

I'd have to look through here a bit.

I don't know.

Are the boreholes or the tusholes are you talking about?

Yes.

I don't know that off the top of my head.

I believe if I remember correctly, the boreholes were approximately down to about 35 feet at most, depending on you know the actual borehole itself.

The reason I bring this up is because there is obviously significant undermining over there in that area.

Obviously, that is something that the council is working on related to the former regency property, now town center property.

When we look at other applications, when we start to get to the size of what we're talking about, that's where we really start looking into those items, the geotechnical.

Again, five and a half years of seeing these developments.

Significing specifically where this building currently is.

No pun intended.

Scratch the surface of really anything going too far down.

Obviously, that's why we don't need it.

We can't have a basement at the current building.

Now that we're going two stories and we're going a extended length, that does bring some concern.

So the question is, has any historical information been reviewed?

Have we looked at any borings currently where specifically this new building the expansion part of the building is intended to go?

To my knowledge, what we have is in that uh geotech study.

I think as the applicant team moves into the 100% design documents, um, they can review that material.

The I will say the mapping that we have available, if if you can believe it actually shows uh the existing PD and a little bit of a a gap, uh not undermined by the same undermining that's farther to the south with the town center properties, or to the southeast uh where the ECC is.

Um neither of those mines, at least from our mapping, appear to have extent that goes underneath the building.

Um yeah, I think as we move into 100% design documents, the engineering team will definitely be reviewing that information.

And and I can reinforce that too.

When we did that building in 2014, uh 2010 to 2015, basically, there were no maps that showed any undermining under that site, and that would include the area west of the existing building where we're trying to put the expansion the extension.

The biggest concern with the basement was the um the expansive soils and the cost.

I mean, we could have put a basement under the building we have now, but it would have been very costly.

It wasn't undermining that prevented us from putting a basement there.

Okay, so um I I know I'm I'm gonna ask you because you're the uh the historian right now for all of us.

Um by chance remember if they had looked at borings or anything to that effect around that time?

Yes, they did.

I know that they did very much geotechnical, and I know they had to go down quite a ways to find the bedrock to put the caseons on.

Um so I'm not sure the depth of those, though.

I can't tell you how how deep they went.

Okay, because um I'm very positive immediately to the south right there, there is extensive coal mining um right at the perimeter of the of the lot or of the um area right there.

So uh for staff and for the applicant, has there been any consideration to complete any borings in this area to verify that I see staff actually is raising their hands.

So any any borings to verify that a two-story building of this length can in fact be situated here.

Deborah Bachelur, deputy director of lighting and development.

I was actually the planner for the original police station, as well as I was the planner for the property to the south.

Um the chief is correct, there were not issues particularly on this site.

There were not issues particularly on this site.

Is the most severe.

And then behind that to the north, there's another mine that's a little less severe than on the corner.

But then it it does fade off to the north.

And I would point out that she's more of a historian than I am.

Yeah.

And typically geotechnical reports of that type, but looking at the undermining on the sites is done with plats.

And so when that was originally platted, we would have sent it off to Carl or G geological survey to have them review the reports and verify.

And they would have looked at it in relation to the building that is proposed at that time, correct?

Yeah, and they also look at the whole site.

They usually when they do borings, they do a general report for the whole site, not just to the foundation.

Yeah.

So but what I'm saying is when they review it, they look at what is being proposed there in terms of what that building is going to be.

Typically, geotechnical reports, if there is mining on the site, will show limits of subsidence.

So it's not specific to a building necessarily within the area of subsidence that they'll identify.

They often um will require certain types of foundations for more shallow or double level undermining.

Okay.

There is some undermining that they don't require anything.

There's we have some very deep mines.

Most of the more shallow mines that I've run into are in this area.

You are correct, but more south of the police station.

Okay.

Commissioner Jeckman, anything new come up for you?

No, he has not at all.

Commissioner Burns.

Um just uh if it was happened to be looking at the uh the geotechnical report and um director Thatchholder uh mentioned, it does indicate that the uh the plating uh for the mines was not within 500 feet of the parcel.

So I think that's maybe what you're referencing the limits of the of the mining.

Um I I did have a question a little bit about the geotechnical and and when Chief mentioned that um the existing structure that's that's on um piling.

Is is the intent to have the the extension on piling as well?

I know that the geotech report did talk about some uh uh slab on grade, but they recommended that it be founded on piling um as well.

I would assume it because these buildings are gonna be actually connected.

Correct.

Yeah, and so I I just want to clarify that they're on rammed aggregate peers.

Um that's uh yeah, and so um that's the existing foundations deep foundation system, and then you have spread footings um above that.

I'll let you know get in more detail, but um the current design for the addition is is uh the same type of foundation system, so which makes sense.

Yeah, and I just clarified.

So there's uh basically so these are collapsible soils, and so that's the intent of the uh random dagger system.

So that's yeah, the um I guess my my concern would be more of um some differential settling if it was connected there.

So I assume that the foundations would be similar if you have similar underground conditions, but correct.

Okay.

I just didn't I didn't dig into all the plan sheets, but yeah, just looking at the the geotechnical.

So I assume that was would be the case, so it should be if you haven't had any issues with the existing building, then we wouldn't expect that there would be anything with the the extension that's all Bertus.

I had two other questions, but they were both already answered, so I'm good.

Okay.

My well, I just closed my item.

Going back to peers, I believe the I mean the recommendation is I guess more of a comment, but you can verify if I'm reading it right, is the the piers that Commissioner Burns mentioned the recommendation was to go to 40 feet and then looking at the um where the holes were drilled.

What were they five or two, four, and five is about twenty feet until we hit bedrock.

So we're expecting to get past all of our soils and drill these deep into bedrock.

Is that correct?

Great.

Um and then I haven't actually walked by it recently.

The western pedestrian path that's on the wait, no, not the western, the southern pedestrian path that's near the the entrance for the controlled lot.

Is that currently concrete or is that a gravel path?

I don't think there's a pedestrian path, but there's that road um that leads to uh it's actually a well accessed road.

Um just south of our lot.

Is that where you're talking about?

Yeah, on the south side.

I'd maybe I was gonna confused with where I was at, but is there a connection from county line to the south of the station to the neighborhood, or is it it's just the gravel?

I believe there is I can speak to that one.

Um so currently the prost or previous iterations of the uh parks parks and rec open space and trails master plan um doesn't actually show a connection on that south side.

And I think part of the struggle is that the um there is a fair amount of grade here, and also the sort of existing condition is the parking of the PD on that south side comes pretty close to the property line.

So we we actually talked about this with uh the parks department some, and their their hope is that we can add a formal connection on the south side, uh south side of the property line, and also uh sort of south of the parking uh that you see here.

Um and part of the reason we're we're not asking for that on the police department property uh is is the space consideration that uh there actually is parking there already, but also the grade uh actually smooths out a bit as you move south.

But currently you do kind of see a path there today, uh, like when you look at the aerial, and that actually I think is for the most part a uh social trail that connects diagonally to the southeast, and then it actually links onto a gravel road.

Um that's actually a service road for uh oil and gas facility that's farther to the south.

And so a lot of folks use that as a connection.

Uh it's not a formal connection as of today, but uh it is our hope that we can create a connection there in the future.

And and part of that the property to the south is owned by the uh Tebow company.

Um but part of the thought process with the sort of overall town center uh redevelopment plan would be to add a trail through there and formalize that connection.

Okay.

That was a long answer, sorry.

It's great.

Um, and then back to parking, just the balance of the enclosed parking.

I believe on the slide I said there's just over a hundred spots and enclosed, which isn't public.

Um is that the right amount, or are there gonna be a lot of empty spots?

Would there be more value in adding more public and viewer there?

Um just wondering why it's 150 instead of like 75.

That that's mostly for growth.

So I have 60 employees now that drive their cars to the police department and park there.

Obviously, they don't do it every day.

Uh they all have different schedules, but as we grow, we will need those spots secure.

Um the other thing that we're gonna use what we have trailers for our investigations unit, we have trailers for our traffic unit, we have trailers for our firearms team.

We have a lot of vehicles and a lot of need for parking when it comes to fleet and employees.

And so, yes, it'll be empty for a little bit, but I think as we grow and add staff and continue to add equipment to the police department, we will eventually fill it up.

Okay.

Right.

And we do have covered in there, I think, or some.

Any final questions before we move to deliberation?

Christian Savish.

Um okay, so in terms of the neighborhood meeting, I didn't see I saw the staff participants uh town participants listed, didn't uh see anybody who was uh uh part of the community.

Um what was some of the feedback or some of the conversations that were noted from that uh we can both go, I guess both give our impressions, but um so we had I think we had eight to ten neighbors somewhere around there, correct?

And uh they I think all of them came from the adjacent creekside neighborhood.

Um they they did ask questions about you know how this was gonna change their view, particularly because the existing building is a single story and we're going up to two stories, and then also the fencing along the trail corridor.

Um I I think I I felt like there was some acknowledgement that uh while their views would be impacted somewhat uh the PD was a appreciated neighbor uh and people weren't really concerned with it.

Um those were those were the big impressions I got, and then questions about uh landscape or trees that were remaining versus trees that would be taken out and replaced.

Um I don't know if you can recall anything else beyond that.

Yeah, landscaping was the big one.

And um, we're not removing any of the existing uh landscaping that is on the existing path.

So um to that point we were not really impacting it.

And then the other one was to fence, you know, they want to make sure that it was not a straight fence that looked like a like a jail.

So we are actually making some design uh features do it by making it look like wood and just make it follow the path of the Sydney sitewalk that we have there.

And I'll just throw it out there.

There was some concern that the initial renderings of that fence, they said it looks like a prison, and and they didn't want it to look like a prison, so we tried to find ways to make that look more inviting and that a lot of the concerns was around that that path that runs uh just to the west of our property because there's a lot of folks that use that, they walk their dogs, they don't want to be looking at a white concrete fence and building.

They want to have some aesthetic appeal there.

Yeah, some of the renderings did make the fence look really tall.

Yes, it was just the rendering.

So anything else?

All right.

The time is now 7:35 p.m.

Wait, where am I?

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

Uh open the floor to commission.

Anyone have any discussion they want to bring up about thoughts on the application?

Go ahead, open floor.

So as the I know this is a weird one.

The applicant is the town and staff is on both sides.

Um as uh Chief Mathis has said, there are some different events that they do, and one of them is the police academy.

Um I have done that before, and that was uh two years ago.

And at that time, they were maxed out in space.

They uh desperately need this space 100%.

Um that isn't a question.

Um what we obviously are here to do is make sure that this is in line with the surroundings and all of our development code.

Um to uh Mr.

Brennan, what you had said about the SRU.

Yes, if you could just make that when it goes up, make that very known that yes, the fencing is also part of the SRU side of things, um, because I know that they're gonna have final decision over there.

Um this is desperately known.

Um I would recommend that the applicant and staff review some of the other applications that have come in through time um immediately south there because um you may be correct in um as Ms.

Bachelor said, it may be that this is outside of that uh mining area, but some of them have gone pushing right up to that area right there.

So just double check, make sure that we don't have any gotcha moments because obviously that's not something we want to see, but um, in terms of the prescribed uh requirements uh for this.

I see nothing wrong with uh approving it tonight.

Okay.

Any other comments?

All right.

Um who wants to make a motion?

There's a nice script to read from Chair Burns.

Okay.

This is for the first motion to approve resolution number P25-15, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that the town council approve the Erie PD expansion special review use, the SRU, with a condition, the condition being the applicant shall make all necessary technical corrections and update all application materials prior to the town council hearing as directed by town staff.

Second all right, we have a motion and a second.

Does anybody want to request a roll call vote?

All right.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye aye.

All opposed, say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Who wants to make the second motion?

I love to hear more.

Sorry, Commissioner Burns.

Yeah.

X chair.

Motion to approve resolution number P25-16, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that the town council approve the ERIPD expansion site plan with the condition, the condition being the applicant shall make all necessary technical corrections and update all application materials prior to the town council hearing as directed by town staff.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Would anybody request a roll call vote?

No requests.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

I'm assuming you can look at the chief in the audience.

Yeah.

He's getting his bigger office.

Our second item tonight is 25611, a resolution of the point of commission of the town of Erie recommendate recommending that the town council adopt an ordinance amending Title 10, Chapter 13 of the Erie Municipal Code for the installation of wireless communication facilities within the town.

The time is now 7:40 p.m.

and I'm opening the public hearing.

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

Copy and paste.

Just me.

Deborah Bachelor, Deputy Director of Planning and Development.

Let me figure out how to make this full screen board.

I have not done a presentation in a while.

Sorry.

Bottom right, maybe.

No, I have to get rid of this thing.

No, it's the bottom right next to the minus sign for the zooming underneath the US.

Thank you.

Okay.

It's been a while since I did that.

All right.

So much better.

Tonight we are going to talk about an amendment to the municipal code, chapter 13.

I'm going to go over some background, the proposal and then the recommendation.

So we're going to talk about wireless communication facilities, which most of us just know with cell towers and cell facilities.

You know, it's like the tower that's on the screen, or there's cell facilities on a lot of commercial building roofs.

Some are on street lights.

We have one at our Erie Community Center that's a light for one of our sports fields, and that's called a camouflaged one.

So the town regulates these different kinds of wireless communication facilities through chapter 13 of the municipal code in the unified development code.

Our municipal code regulations are really derived from the rules imposed by the federal and state regulations that are in place.

And last spring, the state of Colorado took action on wireless communication facilities by adopting House Bill 251056, which added some additional requirements to the regulations that are already in place.

So this House bill did a couple of things.

It amended some definitions of wireless communication facilities.

So the federal government and the state gives a limited time frame.

A municipality has to review these.

And it prohibits municipalities from requiring a separate permit for an eligible facility request, which is an eligible facility request for a cell tower.

It's just like a minor modification.

Like they're going in and they're changing out, you know, maybe the panels or some ground equipment or something.

And they're not changing necessarily the size of the facility that was already approved originally.

And so it prohibits municipalities from doing permits unless it's for a building code or safety requirements.

So that's kind of the general gist of what the House bill did.

So we have town attorneys.

Lots of town attorneys.

We have ones that specialize in wireless communication facilities.

And so I met with them after the House bill was passed.

And they went over our current regulations, the same folks that wrote this chapter for us, to make recommendations to see where in our ordinance we meet needed to make modifications.

And necessary to meet any of these requirements.

So the modifications in the ordinance that they're recommending in they wrote this ordinance was to update the application review time, which is called a time clock by the type of application.

So there's different kinds of applications, like I was talking about.

There's the big towers, those are take the longest to review.

The ones on top of buildings, the ones that are on street lights and in our parks have a little shorter time clock.

It also added requirements for tolling and application time clock that is in review.

Tolling is when a municipality tells an applicant that they're missing documents.

So it's kind of like a timeout.

So if we're only given 90 days to review an application and either deny or approve it, um, if they don't submit all of their materials to us to make a thorough review, we can say timeout that we're going to use that tolling.

Um and that period until they get those documents doesn't count towards that 90 days.

So the state added a requirement for tolling where the municipality has to be a little more specific on what the code provision application doesn't meet, and that the town provide the tolling notice to the applicant within 10 days of application for small cell facilities and 30 days for all the other facilities.

Then we also made a change in the ordinance also includes the provision that an application that is not approved or denied within the time clock is considered approved.

So if we don't do our due diligence and review within the specified time frames, the federal and state government has deemed we need to review it by, then it can be considered approved.

And finally, then to address permitting restrictions in the ordinance, the town added a statement that permits that permits are required to meet building code and engineering standards and specifications to meet our public safety requirements.

Permitting is a separate application than going through the planning review, which is chapter 13.

So permitting is like if you have a tower and you need to do a road cut and do a drive to get to it for maintenance, that requires a right-of-way permit.

If they're doing a new tower that needs an electrical permit in our building code, that's a permit.

So those are the ones we're making sure that we're able to still enforce those and have those companies provide us with those necessary permits.

So on the screen are there's there was really really small change to the number of days that the review time changed.

So all that happened on this table is what's highlighted in yellow.

Um we used to just have one item that was called small cell, which had 90 days through the definitions with the state, they broke out small cell in a right-of-way that's a new facility, and then small cell in a right-of-way was with which is existing equipment.

And how you differentiate those two is so if they're gonna put um a cell on a public light pole in the right-of-way, uh, and they can just put it onto that poll without making any changes, then um then that's existing equipment.

Most typically though, is they are having to reduce remove that poll and do some ground equipment associated with that.

So most of them are the new facilities, and that's the 90 days, and then if it just goes on to existing, if they're able to do that, then it would be 60 days.

So these are the approval criteria that you're to take into consideration when looking at this ordinance.

So the state house bill takes effect on January 1st of 2026.

The town update to our regulations is necessary so that we're not in conflict with the new state regulations.

Staff is recommending that you approve resolution 2514.

That should be P2514, which recommends the town council adopt the draft ordinance amending UDC chapter 13 on wireless communication facilities.

This item is scheduled for public hearing before town council at their December 9th meeting so that we can meet that end of year deadline before the state regulations go into place.

That's the end of my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

Thank you.

Time is now 7.49 p.m.

Um since this isn't a public hearing, we don't open to public comment technically, right?

Or do we?

No.

Yeah.

Okay.

I've got to work them on copy and paste them.

Um the two questions, and we'll start on those uh Commissioner Jackman.

Commissioner Jeckman, do you have any question?

Um question about the the tolling.

Is that a unilateral decision by the town, or is that something that has to be concurred with by the applicant?

No, because it it's uh it's uh based on something that's missing and not meeting our code, so it's a a staff determination.

Okay, because uh there's a clarification, so like a sort of like an RFI kind of situation where they ask or you've you asked for something and they say we've included that, and they would try to get the you know um the tolling to not apply, I guess, in a roundabout way.

I don't know if that was just curious if that was something you can just decide, or if it's like yeah, the you have to agree on the timeout.

We don't have to agree on the timeout, and yes, the applicant can certainly ask us questions at any time if they think they have met it.

Um we have that happen often with any of our applications.

They come back and go, don't you think this one works?

Um and yeah, sometimes we make mistakes and we correct that, but most of the time it is that there is uh a valid reason and a a valid item that is missing from your application that we need.

Say having been on the that side of the review and the usually what they tell us is just reject it and start the clock over again.

We we can do that as well.

That's the spirit of the we we've yet to have to do that with a wireless communication facility in town.

Um helped write the original ones.

Um and most of the companies are good to work with, and um, you know, just like any other development, there's negotiations back and forth and a lot of discussion with them.

Okay.

I'll just continue on the the route.

Um in the proposed ordinance that talks about tolling.

It was uh a new term to me.

Is there any value in adding a definition of tolling in 1013 too in the we definitely have definitions?

So this is just amending very small portions of our chapter 13.

So there's a whole definition section in there that does um defined.

The so I did a search of the municode and tolling only shows up in the um provision.

It doesn't show up in the definitions.

Did it show up?

Did you look at the definitions of chapter 13?

There are separate definitions in chapter 13 that are specific to wireless communications.

We didn't want to make it too confusing by putting it in the regular chapter 11.

Yeah, I didn't see it in 1013 2.

I can I can check that.

Okay.

So I think that was most companies that use it know what tolling is.

Yeah, I that's makes sense.

Um mostly people do not.

I had to learn all those terms from the the attorneys had to teach me everything.

And I think there's some context clues in the ordinance, but I think it would be helpful if we had in the definitions as well.

Commissioner Brodus.

Sorry.

Uh how many of these do we get?

I mean, do we get a lot of changes to our new cell towers coming in?

We don't get tons.

We might get a couple a year.

That's what I figured.

Yeah, we get more modifications than we get new ones.

And have we had any trouble in the past with timing?

No.

Okay.

Didn't expect you would, but I have nothing.

Commissioner S.

Um, yeah, in the spirit of definitions, uh small cell facility.

How is that defined?

Let me open the code.

So I also didn't see this in the in our municipal code, but we are referencing the CRS, which a small cell facility, a wireless communication facility where each antenna is located inside an enclosure of no more than three cubic feet in volume.

Or in the case of an antenna that has exposed elements, the antenna and all of its exposed elements could fit within an imaginary enclosure of no more than three cubic feet.

And primary equipment includes enclosures are no larger than 17 cubic feet in volume.

Electric meter, concealment, telecommunications, demarcation box, ground-based enclosure, backup power systems, grounding equipment, power transfer switch, and cutoff switch.

The definition of small cell facility includes micro cell facilities.

Perfect.

Which are even smaller.

On the name.

Yeah, that was that was all I had.

But I agree the tolling side.

I know our code references tolling multiple times.

And then I would assume tolling is basically the application process in terms of how much time prior to the shot clock or the yeah.

Okay.

Any other questions open floor?

No.

All right.

The it's not a public hearing.

Um commentary on that.

I think for me, I would add this to have a condition that we add a definition of tolling just in our 1013.2.

Um just to be clear on that, if that's simple enough.

Um other than that, I'm happy with that.

Those are my thoughts.

Anyone else have thoughts?

I didn't see it either way.

Yeah.

All right.

Well, since I am one making a change, I'll just make the motion.

A motion to approve with conditions, resolution number P24.

Did I copy that wrong?

2545.

2514.

2514.

A resolution of the appointed commission to town of Erie recommending that the town council adopt an ordinance amending title 10, chapter 13 of the Erie Municipal Code for the installation of wireless communication facilities within the town, the condition being adding a definition of tolling in 1013.

Second.

Does anyone on want to request a roll call vote?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The time is now 7 57 p.m.

and we've concluded general business.

We'll move on to staff reports.

Uh no specific items for staff reports.

Do you have any?

Um I do have one question for you all.

Um so your next meeting is uh December 3rd, and currently there is nothing on the agenda.

Um, and we would ask you to consider canceling that meeting.

Um, and just an FYI on 1217 and so December 17th and January 7th.

You do have tentative items right now, another UDC update, and potentially a preliminary plat at the following two meetings.

So the 1217 meeting is a tentative, yeah.

Is no, is another potential UDC update.

Okay.

Um, and then there's a potential plat on January 7th.

But we do not have anything on the next meeting agenda for the third.

I think that's fine with me having one in December 8.

I don't know.

We'll do a quorum check before making sure people are available for the 17th.

We can do that.

Um, and as I said, right now we have it tentatively, so typically that means we're waiting for something else to happen.

We anticipate it could happen that date, but it's not a definite set date yet.

Okay.

Yeah, and that works for me.

We'll cancel the December third meeting, and we'll stay updated for the December 17th.

Thank you.

That's it.

Thank you.

Um time is now 7.58 p.m.

And we'll go to Commissioner Reports and discussion.

Start with Vice Chair Brodus.

Uh I don't have anything.

Thank you.

All right.

Commissioner Booth.

I don't think I have anything.

Commissioner Salish.

Um wishing everybody up here and everybody, all the thousands of people watching a happy and very joyful Thanksgiving since we won't see everybody until December.

That's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Burns.

Commissioner Dreckman.

Um I only had Thanksgiving on my list, so thanks for covering that.

I'm thankful for that.

All right.

This concludes all items on our agenda.

Commissioner Booth.

Motion.

Second.

We the time is now 7:59 p.m.

and we are adjourned.