Town of Erie Planning Commission Meeting - January 7, 2026

The Town of Erie Planning Commission convened a regular meeting on January 7, 2026, to address the approval of the November 19, 2025 minutes, general business items, and a public hearing regarding a Planned Development (PD) amendment. The primary focus was a proposal to amend the Canyon Creek PD to allow limited small-scale neighborhood commercial uses on a 1.84-acre vacant parcel at Erie Parkway and Miller Street. The hearing featured presentations from staff and the applicant alongside extensive public testimony reflecting deep community concerns regarding traffic safety, privacy, and neighborhood character.

Consent Calendar

• Approval of the November 19, 2025 meeting minutes was moved by Commissioner Booth, seconded by Vice Chair Brodus, and passed unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Bob S (1585 Baincourt): Expressed full support for small-scale development, noting that while the 35-foot height was a minor concern, the project would benefit the community long-term.
• Paula Martin (688 Matthew Circle): Stated strong opposition to commercial use, arguing it is a "strange place" for such development and would negatively alter the neighborhood's feel; requested a separate discussion regarding the prior neighborhood meeting.
• Matt Flood (609 North Bashir): Expressed opposition, characterizing the site as a commercial island within a residential area; feared traffic congestion, lack of business control, and conflicts with the nearby Town Center grocery store promise.
• Lance Dawson (743 South Bashir Court): Voiced opposition, prioritizing family safety and the desire to maintain a low-density residential feel; expressed concerns about traffic on residential streets and high retail vacancy rates in the region.
• Sharon Kent (Bain Drive): Urged the commission to keep commercial activity away from the immediate neighborhood to maintain quiet, privacy, and safety for children traveling to school.
• Lynnell Gillan (730 Matthews Circle): Expressed opposition citing traffic, noise, light pollution, and the redundancy of adding commercial when Erie already has multiple grocery and coffee options.
• Garrett Matthews (730 South Bashir Court): Raised opposition focusing on traffic, privacy, and child safety; argued that the project fails to demonstrate improvement of public health and general welfare due to overwhelming neighborhood opposition.
• Ryan Durfee (601 North Bashir): Expressed opposition based on privacy concerns for homes with walkout basements facing the site; argued that the current proposal lacks a transition from single-family to commercial and suggested multi-family as a more appropriate use.
• Kevin Cheek (1679 Bain Drive): Stated opposition regarding the safety of children walking to Red Hawk Elementary, increased traffic, and negative impacts on local wildlife (owls, hawks) due to light and sound pollution.
• Niall Griffin (645 North Bashir Court): Expressed support for the project, viewing it as an opportunity for community growth and mixed-use integration; argued that the concerns, while valid, are not factual enough to halt development and criticized the "not in my backyard" mentality.
• Jeremy Kiber (628 North Bashir Court): Echoed opposing sentiments, highlighting the danger to children walking to school, increased crime potential, and the feeling of being misled regarding previous zoning changes from daycare to residential to commercial.

Discussion Items

• Comprehensive Plan Alignment: Staff noted the site is zoned residential-medium in the Comprehensive Plan but identified "neighborhood commercial" as an allowable secondary use to support activity centers and infill development. The goal is to attract small-scale, walkable businesses rather than large, auto-oriented commercial developments.
• Prohibited Uses: Staff proposed a list of prohibited uses specifically tailored for this site to ensure it remains small-scale and walkable. This includes prohibiting auto repair, car washes, light industrial, kennels, animal daycares, gas stations, and drive-throughs.
• Development Standards: The amendment requests a 20-foot minimum setback from abutting residential districts (south and east sides) to promote compatibility, and a height limit of 35 feet. The applicant presented a conceptual one-story design with a height of 20 feet.
• Public Concerns: Commissioners and the community raised significant concerns about traffic on Miller Street, pedestrian safety near the elementary school, parking spillover, lighting, privacy for abutting homeowners (due to elevation differences), and the lack of enforceable "guardrails" against future drift into uses like nightclubs or taverns.
• Parking Requirements: Staff confirmed the current code requires a minimum of roughly 85-86 parking spaces based on square footage. The applicant expressed willingness to seek an exemption or reduction in parking minimums, but the commission noted this requires specific action.
• Zoning Confusion: Commissioners noted the ambiguity of the current Proposed PD amendment, which references the broader "Community Commercial" (CC) zone for allowed uses while only listing specific prohibited uses. This creates a risk that uses like taverns or nightclubs could be legally permitted unless explicitly banned.

Key Outcomes

• Motion to Continue: The Commission unanimously voted to continue Public Hearing 2026-1 to a date certain of February 18, 2026.
• Directives for Revised Proposal: Staff and the Applicant were directed to work between now and the next meeting to amend the resolution and PD amendment to include specific conditions and clarifications. These include:
  • Explicitly listing permitted uses (based on the applicant's concept) alongside the prohibited uses.
  • Explicitly prohibiting nightclubs and taverns and clarifying other uses not permitted.
  • Establishing parking buffer or landscaping requirements for the rear and side setbacks to prevent parking from encroaching the property line.
  • Potentially lowering the height limit to ensure a single-story building is the only option, or explicitly requiring single-story construction in the PD.
  • Addressing lighting restrictions and potentially operating hours (to be determined by staff and applicant).
  • Ensuring any approved site plan triggers a Planning Commission review rather than administrative review, providing a second opportunity for public comment.
• Next Steps: The applicant and staff must finalize these amendments. The matter will return to the Planning Commission on February 18, 2026, for further deliberation before potentially moving to the Town Council for final approval.