Good evening and welcome to the January 7th, 2026 regular meeting of the Town of Erie Planning Commission.

The time is now six thirty PM and I'm calling this meeting to order.

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Booth.

Here.

Commissioner Sawish.

Live from Town Hall.

Commissioner Dreckman.

Present.

Commissioner Burns.

Here.

Commissioner Bahem is absent.

Vice Chair Brodus?

Here.

Chair Hempel.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have an agenda before us.

Does staff have any changes?

No changes.

All right.

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

Motion.

Second.

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 November 19th, 2025.

Motion.

Second.

That was Booth and Brodus.

Thank you.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Is there anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience for public comments for the non-agenda items?

I do have two people in the waiting room, though there are no hands raised on that one.

And I do have several people signed up, but it looks like it's for public hearing.

Okay.

Um if they don't raise if they raise their hands, let me know, but I'll go through my public comment uh spiel when we get to that portion, which will be after the presentation.

Thank you.

Uh so we'll go on to general business.

We have one item on the agenda for general business.

Again, my goal is always is to get us out of here by eight thirty.

So we'll uh we'll do that.

And the first item is twenty twenty-six one, a public hearing for a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval of the Canyon Creek Plan Development Amendment number eleven.

The time is now six thirty-three PM and I'm opening the public hearing.

Uh the request this evening is just for approval of this PD amendment.

Uh it covers uh just under two acres.

Um for reference that's about the same size as the Walgreens that's at the corner of County Line Road and Erie Parkway.

Um so it's not a huge lot.

Uh and the request is to change the allowed uses and update the associated development standards, which I'll talk about a bit more uh on later slides.

And currently the pro uh parcel is undeveloped.

Where we sit in the overall development process.

Uh there is an existing uh or it's part of the existing Kenyon Creek PD.

Uh so this is an amendment, proposed amendment to the PD.

Um after this future required applications would still be uh a site plan, uh final plat, and then we would move into things like public improvement permits, uh building permits and this evening.

And this evening, um, because this is a PD amendment, it will go to uh town council after a planning commission recommendation.

I'll give a little bit more background and then talk about the proposal itself and finally get into the recommendation.

The location is uh just at the southeast corner here of Erie Parkway and Miller Street in the Canyon Creek neighborhood.

And you can see the uh sort of town center activity off to the east here.

Uh in terms of zoning, as I mentioned, it is part of the existing Canyon Creek PD, which covers uh quite a large area and has been amended a number of times uh for various filings uh as things have changed over the years.

Uh and this particular area actually has a little bit of an interesting history.

So uh originally it was designated for a daycare use, and then uh that never developed.

Uh a developer or uh a new property owner came around uh in the mid-20 teens and purchased the property, and then a PD amendment went through to add residential medium as an allowed use here.

And a few years later, the property was platted, so it is platted uh as you can see for residential lots at the moment.

Uh that happened in 2019, I believe, and uh again uh nothing has happened since then.

So the property has remained vacant.

The comprehensive plan uh, as you can see here, uh actually identifies this area as residential medium, uh not commercial.

However, uh one of the key components of the new comprehensive plan was that it added uh secondary use categories uh with the intent of adding some uh supplementary and supporting uses for the primary use categories.

Uh and and part of that was in response to feedback uh staff received during the comp plan process that uh some folks were interested in uh having more sort of neighborhood serving small scale commercial mix in with existing neighborhoods.

Uh and as such, uh neighborhood commercial is one of the secondary uses that's listed uh under the residential medium category, which I know sounds contradictory, but uh and I'll talk about that a bit more on this slide.

So we in addition to having a primary use category and secondary supporting uses listed in the comp plan.

There are a number of specific goals that relate to a project like this.

Uh, one of those being activity centers, so uh the desire to ensure each neighborhood has an activity center for its residents.

Um and that this doesn't necessarily mean like a community center, but uh somewhere that people might locate uh somewhere in the in the neighborhood that can provide services or shopping opportunities, those kind of things.

Uh those are all sort of under this category of activity center.

Um and then the second one you see here is encourage infill development.

Of course, this uh this would be an infill site here.

It actually has utilities stubbed out to it already.

Uh and so in that way, uh it's sort of a prime opportunity to take advantage of investment on in infrastructure that has already occurred.

And then finally, uh, this goal to cultivate a mix of local unique and creative businesses.

And so the applicant can talk about their concept a bit more, but um this would be sort of unique from other larger scale commercial developments in Erie and unique from town center uh in that it's it's gonna be a small scale under two acres.

Uh and so the hope would be that uh it could at least staff's hope would be that it could uh attract more of a smaller business type uh format here.

Uh just to give you some additional context of the area.

Looking to the southeast, excuse me.

Uh, you can see the existing Canyon Creek neighborhood in the background here in the sidewalk is built.

Uh you can't really tell from the street view, but there also is a bus stop on Erie Parkway.

And part of the concept would be to help take advantage of that, or that bus stop would be sort of a um a potential asset of this site, and that during the site plan and plot process, we could talk through potential improvements to that bus stop.

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

So we're looking at the uh uh just this particular parcel and filing five, so that's the whole focus of this uh PD amendment.

And there are sort of two main goals of the PD amendment.

The first is to amend the list of allowed uses.

So currently it is only daycare, and that's sort of a holdover from uh as I was saying when it was originally designated as a lot for uh daycare use, uh, and then the medium density residential that was added in 2016.

And so the residential use would be taken away.

That would no longer be an allowed use on this property.

Uh instead, the list would be more commercial.

Uh however, we staff in order to promote a smaller scale, a more walkable scale, um, not a highly uh not uses that were highly auto-oriented.

Uh there are a list that we've added to prohibit prohibited uses that would typically be allowed in the CC zone, but would not be allowed here.

So that would include auto repair, um car wash, uh light industrial, kennel, animal daycare, uh gas station, uh drive throughs, uh those types of uses that would be a lot more auto-oriented because that's not the goal for this property.

We wanted to specifically prohibit those.

So the PD amendment would do that.

And then the second goal of the PD amendment is associated with the first and the changing of the uses, but uh just to update the development standards from what they currently list because that's oriented towards the uh the duplex use or the townhouse use that was proposed previously.

And so these development standards are fairly similar to our NMU zone category.

Uh however, the uh key changes are the addition of this 20 foot minimum setback from residential zone district, so that would apply on the east side and on the south side uh where it abuts the residential neighborhood.

Uh and also the height limit, uh, we we ask that that be brought down to 35 feet, uh, and that is consistent with the uh height limit and the adjacent residential uh and the the uh intent of that is just to promote compatibility and scale.

And then otherwise, uh any commercial would development would still be um subject to all the uh standards and or development standards and guidelines in our UDC for that type of building.

Now I will get into some of the recommendation.

Uh so it is a long list of approval criteria.

Uh, we can talk through these if desired.

I'll go through them a little more quickly here.

Uh public notice was met, or public notice requirements were met for the hearing this evening.

Also, the applicants had held a neighborhood meeting last month.

Uh and some of the key questions and concerns that came up were in particular about the buffering and sort of how you make these two uses compatible, a commercial next to a residential.

So, in particular, lights from the buildings, headlights, uh, how it affected homeowner privacy for adjacent houses, uh, how landscaping could and should be used for screening, and then certainly some uncertainty over the future uses.

Uh, as I mentioned, we've tailored the list of allowed uses a bit, but um at this time I think the applicant can talk about the concept a bit more.

But um, of course, we can't specify particular users, but we can try to narrow down the list of uh allowed categories to better get a result that we're looking for.

Um, and then of course, uh pedestrian safety is also a key concern, um, making sure there's adequate circulation and crosswalks and things like that, especially with uh kids headed to school, those kind of things.

Um I'll come back to that one.

But uh and so uh one of the things I wanted to keep in mind is since we're only looking at the PD amendment tonight, uh, we're not approving any site plan.

Uh staff have not approved a site plan yet.

Uh that's a future application process that we'll go through.

And so I want to be um clear that we we definitely are gonna take the feedback that we've heard from the neighborhood meeting and also uh public comments that have come in since take those seriously and make sure they're being integrated uh when we move into the site plan phase.

Um so that that will be that site plan, depending on the size of the eventual proposed development.

Uh our threshold is anything above 25,000 square feet comes back to you all at planning commission.

Anything under 25,000 square feet is administrative review.

Um so there's there is a chance that it uh that would just be an administrative review on the site plan.

Uh and then a subdivision plat will be required to sort of consolidate it because this land is currently subdivided into a bunch of uh individual residential lots at the moment.

Uh and so with that uh staff do find that this application complies with the approval criteria and recommend planning commission uh approve the resolution, which would recommend approval to town council.

And that concludes my presentation and the applicant also has a presentation.

Good evening.

My name is Dominic Schwartz, and I'm the project development manager with Emerald Development.

Emerald Development is a small family-run real estate development and investment firm based out of Boulder.

Like I Dimi family has roots in Boulder County going back nearly 50 years, and our work is focused on small scale housing, community-based neighborhood retail, and mixed use projects along the front range.

One of our current projects is the new Boulder Museum of Contemporary Art, which reflects our broader focus on context sensitive community-oriented development.

With us tonight is our architect Paul Anderson of Independent Architecture.

Paul's work spans commercial, cultural, and housing projects with a strong emphasis on careful design that responds to its surroundings.

We're here tonight regarding Canyon Creek PD Amendment number 11, which applies to the 1.84 acre parcel at the corner of Erie Parkway and Meller Street.

We are requesting a PD amendment to allow a limited set of small-scale neighborhood serving commercial uses with clear and forcible guardrails so the site can move forward in a way that is both feasible and compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.

I would like to be clear about the stage we were at tonight.

The concept design that we shared is a feasibility test based on code assumptions and site constraints.

It demonstrates whether a one-story low intensity concept can physically work on the site.

This is not a site plan, nor is it a building design.

The image shown is approximately 17,000 square feet of building area in two single-story buildings of 8,500 square feet each, with a conceptual height of around 20 feet.

By way of background, the site has been evaluated for residential and daycare uses.

Unfortunately, under current construction and financing conditions, neither option pencils.

And as a result, the parcel has remained stalled with no realistic path forward under the existing PD.

What we were proposing is not destination retail and not a regional shopping center.

It is intended to function as a small-scale neighborhood serving retail node, more like a walkable corner embedded in the neighborhood.

Erie already has a larger mixed-use retail project underway nearby that is designed to be a regional hub.

This proposal is intentionally the counterpoint to that.

It is meant to be focused on smaller local purveyors that often cannot compete with larger retailers.

We held the neighborhood meeting and received additional written comments.

The feedback has been consistent and thoughtful.

Concerns about traffic, child safety, parking spillover, lighting, privacy, future tenants, and overall fit within a residential area.

We take these concerns seriously, and we are responding in two ways.

First, through enforceable PD level guardrails, and second through the technical work and design refinement that would follow if the use changes approved.

Regarding the guardrails, we support the town's requested language to prohibit drive-through use of any kind.

We also support clear limits on permanent uses.

So this does not drift over time into something the neighborhood never agreed to.

The goal is a narrow local serving use set, not an open-ended commercial entitlement.

As to the technical work and design refinement, the traffic study will focus on the issues raised by the neighbors.

Access and turning movements from Meller, pedestrian and bicycle conflict points, and the routes taken by the children.

We are committed to working with the staff, hearing from the neighborhood residents, and implementing mitigation measures where needed.

On the design side, we will pursue a buffer strategy that works with the topography.

We heard clearly that simply trees and a fence will not address elevated site lines for homes above the site.

Special emphasis will be given to landscaping on the south and east edges where the site directly abuts homes.

That edge condition is not a footnote for our team.

Rather, this is the main design problem to solve.

Our solution is a layered approach with year-round screening with evergreen components, berming where feasible, and placement of parking and service functions away from the most sensitive edges when possible.

Lighting will also be designed to utilize full cutoff fixtures, practical pole heights, and controls that reduced after our impacts.

We recognize the town's responsibility is to ensure this partial evolves in a way that is feasible and consistent with the surrounding neighborhood.

We are committed to continuing the dialogue with the community and the town, refining the plan based on this feedback, and putting real protection into the PD so the neighborhood isn't being asked to rely on trust alone.

We appreciate the commission's time, staff's guidance, and the community's engagement.

With that, I'll turn it over to Paul briefly to walk through the slideshow.

Good evening.

I'm Paul Anderson, the architect on the project.

Thank you for your time and hearing this tonight.

I'm actually going to skip through a couple things here because this has all already been covered by other people, so I have no reason to repeat it or to orient you.

You've sort of seen where where we are.

I think the main thing that I wanted to show is this site diagram, which uh Dominic referred to.

This this is as has been mentioned a couple of times now, not a not a design for the site.

It was just more like a feasibility study to see if I you know if the of an amount of one-story small-scale retail and the parking that's required by the town code currently would be able to fit on the site.

And you know, we kind of confirmed that with this diagram, but you know, we're obviously this there's far from final, in fact.

I think there's uh would I would predict a lot of changes to it based on what we've heard from people and uh from the town so far.

So um that is about it, I think from us.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for your presentations.

The time is now 6 50 p.m.

and we'll move to public testimony.

And I know we have people signed up.

So let me read this script.

Public comment is limited to three minutes per person.

When you are called upon, you're 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 item or issue.

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

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

You're giving comments virtually.

We will ask that you wrap up and mute your microphone.

You may resume watching the meeting or disconnect at that time, and we'll start with in person.

Thank you.

I have Bob S first up.

Jake allowed me the time to speak.

I'll support a small scale uh development like that.

1585 Baincourt.

Thank you.

Thank you for allowing me the time.

I support such a thing as long as it was respectful of the neighbors.

35 feet was a little bit of concern, but I believe that it'd benefit the community long after all available residential space has been built out.

And uh I just want to put my support by it.

I am close, and I worry more about the neighbors who are directly there, but uh I do appreciate it.

35 feet was the max.

Did I hear that correct?

Hi.

Thank you.

Okay, next I have Paula Martin.

Good evening.

I'm Paula Martin.

I live at 688 Matthew Circle.

So our northwest part of our yard backs up to that property.

Um I don't support commercial use of it.

I just think that it's a strange place for that.

It would seem like additional residential might be proposed like it was before, but um it would just change the entire feel of our whole neighborhood.

And I also wasn't aware of the previous neighborhood meeting, but I'd love a chance to discuss that separately, just on a more personal basis with how it will affect our property in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next up, I have Matt Flood.

Hi Matt Flood uh 609, North Bashir.

I also uh live next to the proposed change.

Um we've been there since 2005.

Um a lot of the concerns have already been shared.

Um I'm struggling with it being commercial just because it seems like a commercial island inside a res residential area.

Um when we moved in, it was designated as uh the daycare, which made sense and we agreed with that, even when it changed to medium density, that was higher, but still it made more sense to be uh residential in that area.

Um also concerned that uh what commercial would be there uh with the town center being so close, and there's so much commercial that's gonna be right down the street.

Um I'm just struggling like they they um they were highlighting small um grocery store and such, but there's already a promise of a grocery store that's right down the street.

Um the other concern is no control of businesses.

Uh my fear would be that it's commercial, but it's like a second-tier commercial because anybody that wants to be commercial will want to be in a larger district like it is.

Um traffic, obviously, uh there's only one entry into that at the end of the property.

Um, traffic is already starting to back up on um Erie Parkway in the mornings as it is, plus with the kids going to schools, um, and then the uh lights, noise activities and such different hours, uh thing there was mention of restaurants, umise smells, people coming in and out later at night, um, are all concerns.

Um thank you.

Okay.

Um next up I have Lance Dawson.

Hello.

Uh my name is Lance Dawson.

I live at 743 South Bashir Court.

So about two blocks from the development.

I'm sorry, I haven't didn't really prepare anything and just doing this on a whim.

But as he spoke during the presentation, you said that this is within uh the Canyon Creek neighborhood.

It's a it's a residential neighborhood.

Uh we moved up to Erie from Westminster because we liked the open areas, lack of development construction everywhere, that there's not a strip mall in every corner like there is in Westminster.

Um here six years ago, every corner seems like there's more and more development.

Uh, we moved up here to raise our family to be able to walk to schools, ride our bikes, and we walk by that uh property every day with our two-year-old daughter, and eventually we'll commute on foot to uh Red Hawk Elementary School.

So traffic is definitely a concern.

Um, as you see on that development, you know, the only entrance is off of Meller right now, not off Erie Parkway, because it's dangerous to enter uh right after a light to make a right-hand turn into there, so there'll absolutely be an increase of traffic on the residential street.

Um, and every day there's families and kids and little kids uh learning to ride their bike to go to school, and I think that'll uh one pose a danger.

Um there's already a ton of retail development, and it's great to see the city expanding and growing, but there's already retail development in large swaths of land.

This is a 1.8 acre site.

Um, with all the development, you guys can't guarantee occupancy.

You know, what happens in five ten years down the road when things slow down.

Westminster has, I think a 32 or 33% retail um vacancy rate right now.

Um so as you build and grow, you know, businesses come and go.

Um, but that site again, it's within a neighborhood.

I I I don't support it turning into commercial.

Um again, yeah, uh, there's already a ton of retail, a ton of options and opportunity.

Um, so I'm against uh the development of the area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next up I have Sharon Kent.

Hi, I'm Sharon Kent, and I live on Bain Drive.

And I just want to reiterate what my neighbors are saying about wanting to maintain the quiet residential neighborhood that we have and keep the commercial activity down on uh County Ryan County Line Road, Erie Park way further down away from the neighborhood to keep it safe for kids who are traveling to school at uh elementary school down the street, and then just also keeping the neighborhood quiet and free of traffic coming in from other places.

Um we'd like to keep that commercial activity away from our neighborhood so we can maintain that that private, calm, calm neighborhood feeling.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next up, uh Lynnell Gillan.

Hi, Lunel Gilloland, 730 Matthews Circle.

I um do not support this plan, several reasons that have been mentioned the traffic increase.

This is a street that people walk their dogs on, little kids walk, little kids have bicycles, uh, the noise, the light pollution.

Uh also concerned if this really is a goal to have a walkability neighborhood center, why it needs 86 to 100 parking spots, which I believe I heard in the original presentation a couple weeks ago.

Um I think that kind of defeats the purpose.

And I think having a grocery store and already four or five coffee shops in Erie, we probably have all that covered already.

So rather than continue to add commercial, keep the town feeling of Erie.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Next up, I have Garrett Matthews.

Hi, I'm Garrett Matthews, and at 730 South Pashir Court.

Just also wanted to voice opposition to this rezoning due to similar concerns with uh traffic increases along Meller, privacy for the homes nearby, and then like particularly safety with especially with respect to children who often it's just the most common route to get to to school there.

So we don't want to see safety concerns in our neighborhood.

We don't want our neighborhood changing to have this commercial space that'll completely change the feel of the neighborhood.

The applicant mentioned guardrails, so this one potentially drift into something the neighborhood never agreed to, but the neighborhood is stating right now we don't agree to this in its current state.

Um and then the last thing I wanted to bring up is just if this resolution is approved, it's certifying that it satisfies satisfies criteria that it seems like the public does not agree is being satisfied in a few points.

Uh point three on that uh resolution that is improving public health safety and general welfare.

And there seems to be overwhelming opposition in this meeting, the neighborhood meeting, all the submitted comments from the public that this is not improving the general welfare.

Um at point 13 similar that this would be uh modifications are permitted in exchange for greater public benefits, and same thing we're seeing the public as saying this is not a benefit to our community.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, next up I have Ryan Durfay, Derpy, Gervain.

Sorry if I messed that up.

Very close.

I'm Ryan Durfee.

Um I live at uh 601 North Bashir.

My I back directly to the lot that's being developed.

Um I'll echo what everybody else has said.

Um I'm opposed to the development.

Um all the houses that back to that lot, they're all partial walkouts.

So my main floor sits six feet above grade.

So when I'm standing in my living room, I'm 12 feet above grade.

When I'm in my second floor, there's no amount of buffering that's gonna stop you from all those people from seeing a hundred cars get parked every day going in and out, and most of the lots that that back to that are very shallow lots.

A lot of them are 20 feet deep.

So that means when these people are sitting on their decks at night, they're gonna be listening to cars and people parking and talking all night long.

Um, not just you know, during the day during business hours, but you know, these shops are going to stay open until probably nine o'clock, 10 o'clock at night.

Um there's just an irreparable loss of privacy um that I think is just detrimental to the direct, directly abutted neighbors.

Um I don't want to say that no amount of commercial spaces would be approvable to me.

Like I'm generally pro-mixed use.

What I think would be thoughtful was more like what was designed down further down the street at the corner where they had transitions from single family to multi-family to office to commercial and retail with parking.

Um, there's no buffer here, there's no transition from single family down to uh more intensive uses.

And you know, to me, mixed use on this lot that would be appropriate would be you know multi-family all around the outskirts, and then maybe one or two small retail spots up on the corner with limited parking for walkability.

That would be something that I could get behind and say, okay, that's not a huge deal to me.

Not a huge amount of traffic that's going to be improv increased, and there's not a lot of you know visual and audible um nuisance to the to the neighborhood.

That would be something to me that was like well thought out and well planned if there were those transitions in place.

So I don't want to come off as absolutely not, but that is what I think thoughtful development would look like.

So that's all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Next, in person, I have Kevin Cheek.

Yes, thank you.

Um, I just want uh Kevin Cheek, I live at 1679 Bain Drive.

I wanted to add my voice in opposition to this plan for a number of reasons, many of which have been avoided uh addressed already, such as the safety of children walking to and from Red Hawk Elementary, that is the main route along which they walk.

The increased traffic, we already have a problem with people speeding onto Meller and slowing down to 25 by the time they get to uh laner drive eventually, or maybe not.

Uh and another issue is that right now we still have a lot of wildlife, owls, hawks, etc.

in our neighborhood.

But with the construction uh along uh counting line right now, that has already been diminished.

And I'm worried that the additional light pollution and sound pollution from the uh businesses would uh make it less uh hospitable to the wildlife, especially the owls.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, um last in-person sign-up I have is Niall Griffin.

Thank you.

I'm Nile Griffin.

I live at 645 North Bashir Court.

I'm actually in um support of this.

I feel like while I understand people's concerns, I'm not saying that they don't make sense.

But something I've seen Erie seem to do is we sequester, we put businesses, we're trying in areas that end up making it feel like strip malls, and I think it actually has negative impacts on the community development side of things.

And having this, while I understand, yes, it might change a little bit of the nature of the community that I currently live in.

I too have a daughter, I'm gonna be going down these ways.

Like I don't actually see the risk increasing to such a substantial or negative level that all of a sudden our town is going to collapse, which does feel like what is kind of being said here.

And I think there's a lot of assumptions being made that are actually not hugely factually based.

And I also think there's a lot of concerns that equally could occur if we did do residential there.

And so while I I understand the concerns, I personally would like to see this in my community because I you know I go to Lafayette a lot.

And one of the things I love about Lafayette is that there is this mixed zoning, and that you can go just literally down the block in your places like East Simpson, the Red Queen, the Lumber Yards.

And I know there's tensions there.

I'm not saying that there won't be, but I also know there's a great opportunity to see communities increase and grow.

And we talk about having this interest in community, and yet it seems like this is a moment of not in my backyard, literally.

And so while I'm not a butt against it, I'm also part of the cul-de-sact that is going to be most impacted.

And I just want to throw my support behind it, even though it does seem to be in opposition to most of the voices here tonight.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, online.

I have Jeremy Tieber and Ruby on tonight.

Hi, are you able to hear me?

Yes.

Uh, thank you.

My name is Jeremy Kiber.

Uh, I live at 628 North Bashir Court.

Um, I'd like to add my voice to this as well.

I think that this sounds a good in theory, and I think you know, there are people that are for this that only see one side of it and have good intentions, but I think there's a lot of negative stuff that goes on with this.

I'd like to echo the sentiment that a lot of people have already said here today.

One of my biggest concerns is the impact towards the school that's been mentioned.

We're currently not on a bus route to Red Hawk, and that's in large part because of the fact that there is no commercial between here and the school.

It's just residential, and it's safer for our kids to walk.

If there's a lot more kids walking and there's a lot more cars coming in and turning into uh a parking lot that is a normal walking route for our kids to go to that school, it drastically increases the danger to our children.

Um, there's already flags that have been put up on that intersection by the scouts because um to try and minimize the danger of that intersection, putting commercial there is going to add to that problem.

Also, any time you add commercial to an area, um, crime increases, foot traffic increases.

There's gonna be a lot more foot traffic through our neighborhood, and specifically our cul-de-sac, because it doesn't have there's not a barrier to get through there, and people will cut through there.

There's gonna be a lot more people passing through our houses and our cul-de-sac where our children play.

Um, and as young children that are new into our cul-de-sac start to grow up and play in our cul-de-sac, there's gonna be a lot more people coming through.

There's gonna increase danger to those.

As people have mentioned, a lot more noise and light pollution is going to occur.

Um, if we have real estate and commercial things going on there, there's gonna be stuff coming into our houses late at night that obviously isn't a desirable activity.

We all want something nearby, we're getting something nearby.

Just a few blocks away.

The Erie Town Center is going through their whole development right now.

The need to add commercial into an area that is not supposed to be commercial, just a couple blocks away, seems incredibly unnecessary considering all of the drawbacks that are there.

Also, the town's already lied to us twice about what's going on with this lot.

When we all moved into this neighborhood, it was supposed to be a daycare.

And then it we got lied to and it got changed to more dense housing.

When that happened, it's now getting changed to something else.

Had our HOA known about the ability to change the zoning there, we likely would have been interested in purchasing it for our neighborhood for an HOA.

Perhaps a pool, perhaps a uh an HOA community building.

I think there's a lot of things that could have gone in there that we would have been very fast to go for that would not be commercial that we didn't know.

Um additionally, the applicants didn't seem to have said we're gonna do this on notified us on the 25th.

There was a neighborhood meeting on the 18th.

I didn't know about, I got notified after that.

People that did go to that, so they didn't say any of the stuff they said today.

The planning meeting didn't line up with what was said today.

So I just like you know, the board and the council to understand that if you had something behind your house and you were promised it was going to be X, then it got changed to Y, and now it's gonna be changed to Z, and it's gonna negatively impact your environment, increase traffic through your neighborhood.

You would probably be opposed to this as well.

Thank you.

Um I have two more folks left in the waiting room.

If you would like to speak on this item, please raise your hand and I can bring you into the meeting.

And I have no hands raised and nobody else signed up on the list.

Okay, no one's signed up.

Does anyone want to make a comment who hasn't signed up?

Okay.

The time is now 7-11 p.m.

Uh, would applicant and staff like to make a response to any of the public comments?

Again, there won't be any um discussion, but if you want to make any direct commentary before we start asking questions, I mean it's just as far as the argument goes.

Can you come up to the mic?

And there will be time, we'll be asking questions too.

It's just part of the process.

I mean, we have taking in everything that I'm hearing, and we're taking our notes and uh yeah, we can address the parking when people have questions.

Okay, then we will move to commissioner questions.

We'll do the same process we've been doing for the last few meetings with two questions around the board, and then we'll go back for final questions.

Um, anybody want to volunteer to start or should I call on someone?

I can go.

All right, Commissioner Booth.

Thank you for the presentations and thank you for such a good turnout from the community.

Um I think my first question that I have is probably for staff.

Um one of the slides, it talked about prohibited uses.

And my question on that one is is that an exhaustive list, or is that like a small list?

Let me pull that slide back up.

It's uh uh but but before I get to the slide, it's uh that is sort of a summarized list.

So the full list is uh in the actual PD um zoning amendment on the let's see what page that would be.

Uh it's on the second page, and that should be which attachment is your fifth attachment, should be your fifth attachment in the packet.

Is that proposed PD amendment?

Correct.

Correct, yep.

Um, so that's the longer list, but I think that um this list on the slide is most of them.

Um I think uh if if there were specific uses that uh the commission felt strongly about, I think um that could be a conversation of uh possible amendments um or or possible changes to make before uh town council.

Uh I won't speak on behalf of the applicant, but if the applic applicant agreed to do that, if there were specific uses that wanted to or that you wanted to add to the list, uh we could talk about that, certainly.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna ask my two questions and then I'm gonna go review that.

And so I might have more questions on that.

Of course.

Um I think on the I think it's on the application and narrative.

And I have a question on someone somewhere in there, it states that this is really just a minor change.

Can you go into how this is classified as a minor change?

We it it may say minor in the narrative, but there's no process difference.

So uh uh under our code and our review structure, uh all PD amendments are treated the same way, so they all go through the uh normal staff review and then the full public hearing process of planning commission and town council.

So um so that's not a meaningful distinction, I guess, for a PD amendment.

It's they're all treated the same.

Okay.

Can I ask a very small question?

Sorry.

If this gets approved tonight, it goes to town council for further approval.

And then because of the size, will it really never come back out?

Uh I don't know that for sure.

So I think that depends on so just for example, um the sort of code evaluation.

Um this this diagram shows uh two buildings that are 8500 square feet.

And so if something uh, you know, obviously the applicant said this isn't their exact plan.

Uh if something of this scale were to come back, uh that total square footage would be 17,000 square feet, and that would fall under our threshold to require a planning commission review, so that would be a staff review.

Um, however, I do think um I it it it is possible that a 25,000 square foot building uh could be part of the consideration, or or that may be the grand total of what's proposed.

So in that scenario, that would hit the threshold.

So I guess what I'm saying is this this probably sits around the threshold, so it kind of depends on what the eventual proposal would be about whether it would go to planning commission or whether it would stay under that 25,000 square feet threshold and therefore be administrative.

Okay.

Also, the director can refer any site plan to you all.

That's true.

So just keep that in mind.

Go down the line.

Commissioner Salwish, do you want to go next?

Okay, uh just some administrative procedural questions for staff.

Um per the user guide for PDs and amendments.

Um did our planning and development director waive the PD requirements for the following assessment of impact report, general conception conceptual utility report, threatened danger species, habitat and wetlands report, cultural, archaeological, and historical resource report, and the environmental hazard reports.

Some of them, so some of those are in your packet.

So the um assessment of impact report is in the packet.

There's a conceptual utility, although that that utility report, I believe, is what was generated with the previous concept uh of townhomes.

There's a geological study.

Um the endangered species was not required on this.

The because of the lot size, because it was under two acres.

Um then I'm the art neither was the archaeological.

So that was uh there was an archaeological and cultural history report done with the initial Canyon Creek or with earlier filings of Canyon Creek, uh, so we didn't re-require it for this.

Um the that assessment of impact report is there, oh there's also a market study in there.

I believe that's one of the um uh items listed in that submittal checklist.

Uh so we did review the impact study um or assessment of impact study, and it is very brief.

Um I think at this point, because of the development is so conceptual and they don't have users lined up.

Um it would have been hard to really pin down a number for uh traffic estimates and things like that.

So we will require if if approved, we would require at site plan and plat full uh traffic impact analysis and then same with utilities, uh same with grading and a drainage study.

Um all those things.

That was a long answer, but I uh that that's that's why thank you.

Um this is another procedural question, and uh may have the um assistant town attorney weigh in on this one.

Um there have been comments about notice.

I am seeing the two notifications that were included within our agenda items.

There is a notice that was issued uh tested to on the 2nd of December for a neighborhood meeting on the 19th.

I am also seeing that there is, and this is the one um I have question on uh public hearing notice for this body, the planning commission is saying notices here by giving that on Wednesday, December 19th at 6 30 p.m.

There will be a public hearing for this application, and this was published on the 17th of December.

So this was issued for Wednesday, December 19th and published on the 17th.

Is that is that within the window that is required for public notification for these hearings?

That is a typo on the public hearing notice.

So uh because there was no hearing on December 19th.

Uh that that should have been the January 7th tonight's hearing.

So what was sent to residents or what was published, because this is attested uh from our clerk's office that this was indicating Wednesday, December 19th, published in the um hometown weekly.

Yeah, so that's the newspaper notice.

The public hearing notice that went out through the mailer did have the correct address, but yeah, that's a typo on the uh newspaper notice that went out.

Okay, so for the um assistant town attorney, is this um sufficient for public notice as required by our UDC?

Um yeah, because we never had the public hearing on that date um when the agenda that meeting was canceled too.

That was also um that was published on the town's website.

So okay.

Do we know when this was published to the town's website?

Because there's two aspects.

There is the applicant who needs to provide notice, and then there is also the town that needs to provide notice.

What is this suffice within 24 hours?

When the when it was canceled, is that what you're saying?

No, I'm saying because this was the 17th that it was issued for public notice for a meeting on the 19th.

Is this does this fall to the 24 hour notification that this body will hold a meeting, or is it required for a specific number of days prior to a public hearing for a notice to be issued?

Um I I can you rephrase your question because there was never a there was never a hearing on the 19th, so the hours or days wouldn't have mattered here.

But this was notice for the 19th.

It was initially notice notice for the 19th.

Yes, I understand the meeting did not happen.

If there was a meeting for the 19th, was this sufficient?

Because we basically have to go to what this said.

It was issued out the 17th for a meeting on the 19th.

That's incorrect that we have to go based on what it said if the hearing wasn't um happened.

It's it's move, it's a moot point.

Um, whether it would meet that standard because we never had a hearing on the 19th.

We already the town publicly noticed that there was the meeting on the 19th was canceled.

So it doesn't really matter.

Okay.

I'll continue uh in a moment, so thank you.

We'll go around to Commissioner Trekman.

Um I know you said the traffic analysis is hard to predict just because we don't know, but based on the opposition from the neighborhood, has it been considered that extensive like another traffic study should be included before I know like it's hard to predict, but maybe just predicting the more you know traffic density development there, I guess it just seems like that might be something the town could consider before changing.

Um that it's sort of a chicken the egg situation.

So when we're at this PD amendment stage, um there's such a wide range of uses that would generate pretty different traffic volumes like a gas station versus um you know a yoga studio or something like that that just had a couple of classes uh a day.

So it's tricky without having a particular use in mind, and that's why we usually require that at the site plan and plat stage.

And but I know that uh for residents that creates some uncertainty because uh that also is the stage where we would recommend traffic improvements if need be.

So the inner nearby intersection is already signalized, but uh it could include uh different striping um uh possibly crossing improvements for pedestrians, those kind of things.

And so that's the stage we would look at that type of thing.

Um so it is it is hard.

I I think the the answer is that we we will expect to look through uh all the all of those details and get sort of an exact estimate.

Exactly.

That's estimate is kind of contradictory, I guess.

Yeah, uh a more precise estimate of what the use of the actual square footage of the uses and the specific traffic counts we could uh we could expect.

Um all of that will we for sure will be going through at site plan and plat if if approved, if this is approved to you.

Okay, um and then my second question I just keep I the terms like neighborhood commercial versus general commercial are used, and I understand when you said neighborhood commercials like ideally smaller businesses, but is there a exact definition or you know, some just that makes it really clear the difference between you know down the street with more general commercial and this how enforceable is that so I think uh sort of two answers to that.

So I think the way the way I've been using neighborhood commercial is probably a less precise um definition the way I'm using it.

I think our comp plan does have specific definitions for neighborhood commercial.

Um sorry, I'm just scrolling into it.

Uh so neighborhood commercial includes small-scale retail office and services and locations that serve as neighborhood hubs where residents can meet their daily needs.

Uh as opposed to quarter commercial, quarter commercial includes commercial businesses that draw people from the region along highways and arterial roads, big box stores, that kind of thing.

Um so those are definitions that are in our comp plan.

Um although I think in this situation I'm probably not being super precise with my language, but uh when when we're saying neighborhood, we're we're thinking about uses that are not drive-through or not overly auto-oriented.

Okay, thank you.

That's good for now.

Commissioner Burns?

Um this is probably well, maybe for more for the applicant, but also the town.

Um talked about the interest in making this a more walkable kind of commercial site.

Um why is there so many parking spots?

That is basically off of code from Erie.

Okay.

Actually, required 85 spots.

Uh, I think we somehow they put an 86.

Is that still uh uh because I know we're trying to get rid of those minimums to reduce um yeah, so those minimums are still on the book.

So the uh minimum off-street parking for it again, it varies a little bit depending on which particular type of commercial use, but uh retail is a minimum of one space per 200 square feet of development.

Uh office, I believe, is one per 300 square feet.

Um that being said, I think uh because we know we are working on or potentially in the future working on UDC updates to take a hard look at some of these parking estimates and determine whether they're really accurately calculated.

Um that and we we do have uh section in our UDC that allows the director of planning and development to look into minor modifications for parking that could reduce some of that minimum parking requirement, particularly uh in situations where there is public transit that could be uh more highly utilized um where the applicant uh or or in exchange for applicant providing things like additional bike parking or sort of improved bike parking like a shelter or something like that.

Um so there are there are quite a few alternatives that we could look at if um if if appropriate if yeah sort of appropriate trade-offs are made.

And I I think just in the spirit of of trying to promote that kind of neighborhood feel, um I think just the visual, and I know this is not a site plan, um that creates the I think a little bit of the anxiety that there's gonna be a lot of vehicle traffic.

Um although I also note that if this was a daycare, you probably have something similar if you would just down the street.

Similar times of kids going to and from school.

But I was also speaking with ownership today too.

And you would we would the consensus was we would be more than happy to apply for an exemption to have fewer parking spaces.

Okay.

Um second question, um, and again with the graphic that's shown on the screens.

And again, with the graphic that's shown on the screens.

Yeah, out of roughly 20 feet.

Okay.

Is there I guess any intention thought that there might be a multi-story structure there?

And because I'm I'm trying to address the concern that uh visibility-wise, especially for the neighbors back onto it.

Um with the existing six-foot fences, and I think the the trees that are proposed along this, a one-story building may not be as much of a visual visual blight as a multi-story up to 35 feet.

So that may be some of the concern as well.

Yeah, and this as envisioned is exactly a one-story building with a maximum roughly again of 20 feet.

Thank you.

So I'll just keep going and you'll go less.

Um in our comprehensive plan, this is for staff.

We have commentary about corridors of special interest, this being on Erie Parkway.

What uh considerations were made or this proposal for that corridor.

So the because we're not necessarily getting into materials at this stage, I think um what one of the main considerations was in the building placement, and so that in addition to ensuring that we had more of a setback from the residential area.

Uh the uh on on the other side, sort of on the converse, the uh zero foot setbacks for front and side on that would be on Meller Street and Erie Parkway.

Um, I think was partially envisioned to help ensure that there's or encourage at least that there's a street presence on uh Erie Parkway and or Meller.

Um and that that I think is sort of part of this concept of not having um along Erie Parkway uh uh predominance of parking uh in these types of well uh in this particular commercial development, not having parking up against Erie Parkway so that it presents more of a um attractive face, I guess if you will.

Uh I think that was one of the main considerations.

Uh we also thought about that in terms of use.

So um yeah, for a special or area of special consideration, knowing that this is pretty close to uh Erie Town Center.

I think the thought process was that uh in addition to integrating with the neighborhood, it could receive extra walkability and possibly transit use.

Um therefore uh that was part of the consideration and sort of picking this list of uses too that would be less auto-oriented and more uh pedestrian oriented, hopefully.

Okay, and then on all sorts of questions as well, but I will go with parking because I do seeing the site plan with all the parking spaces, understanding that is the minimums um in our in our code, we do have parking reductions available in mixed use districts, but this isn't a mixed use district, but we do have a PD.

So are we do we have a lot more flexibility to reduce parking because it is a PD and say we can ignore sections of the code and not have minimum parking, or how uh we do actually, yeah, through uh a PD um we could actually yeah, through a PD set a lower um parking requirement, we can supersede uh standards that are in the UDC.

Okay.

Uh I'll revisit that one, but that is my two, so Vice Chair Brodus.

Okay, so first is a comment, not a question.

Which is just you do have things about traffic counts in the narrative that was written up.

Um, but it only talks about Uri Parkway, doesn't talk about Meller.

And the concerns are more about Meller and what's going down there.

So if this does proceed, I would look for information on impact to the neighborhood street, just to let you know that.

Um in the picture that's up.

It seems like you do have listed a 20-foot buffer or setback in the south, but not in the east.

Does the 20-foot and I know this is conceptual?

Yeah, um, does the 20-foot apply towards buildings or the lot?

Does that question make sense?

Yeah, yeah, no, it does, or or yes, it does.

The the way it's written, that setback would apply to uh buildings and not um not flat work.

Or not not parking.

Okay, yeah.

Um in the PD if this again if it goes forward to do something because the parking spaces are looks like within like a foot of the property line.

Yeah, and it's conceptual.

Sorry, yeah.

Sorry.

Yep.

Um and um I uh again, yeah, since it's conceptual, I'm not sure actually that the building on the north side is meeting the 20 foot setback either.

So yeah.

Um a related question is the way this is laid out.

It sort of implies that loading and unloading into the I don't know, the building closer to Erie Parkway would happen through the front door, which seems unusual.

That's why normally there's like a backdoor for loading, like if that's the grocery store.

So things like that we should consider as we moving.

Um does that count as two questions, or is it didn't really feel like two.

Okay.

So the other question is the buffer and fencing and things like that.

There was a public comment about people walking through the yards, and I would expect there would be some type of fencing around this property.

There yeah, there's an existing uh six-foot fence that's the that belongs to the the residential neighborhood uh that rings this whole site, and there aren't any planned pass throughs um through that.

Uh and in fact, I don't I mean I don't know that it it would make sense to add an additional privacy fence on the commercial site, but there might be a need for some kind of low uh low fence, especially to block headlights and things like that.

But um yeah, I guess that was all I was gonna say on that.

Okay, yeah.

That's my two for now.

I'll probably have more later, but great.

We'll just continue down the line.

Do we have any uh um other examples in Erie of neighborhood commercial that that specific category I believe was sort of newly described in the updated comp plan?

Um so I don't know that I have any examples off the top of my head that have developed under that sort of designation.

Um I think maybe other planners in the room could help me think of things of similar scale that I wouldn't suggest um close to where we work out of the North Boulder, uh there's a place called Lucky's Market on the corner of Broadway and Keynesi Avenue, and it's like a right in the middle of a surrounded by a neighborhood, and it's a really nice, it's got a it's got a nice little grocery store, it's got a nice bakery, um, some really local shops, uh a breakfast place that serves breakfast and lunch, um, you know, and the parking is not as robust as this picture of uh portrays.

Um I'm only about a half mile away from there, um, you know, but we you know we see the way that the community really leans on that property, and I would suggest that maybe we you know take a look at that on Google Maps.

It's pretty interesting.

So the Erie Commons area is probably a good example of that scale.

Is that more of the like for the credit union and ziggies, like more that side?

Okay.

And I live in Erie Commons, so I I do have some of that.

Um I think my next is more like a comment and it'll kind of um talk about the parking also.

I would really like to see some adjustments to the parking.

Um all of those spaces along the fence to me are unnecessary, even behind that building seems a little overkill as well.

Um so that's just a comment.

And then the other one, and I know this isn't a site plan, but it was in the application materials, but it did talk about a grocery.

Um and I'm I'm really having a hard time understanding that concept with knowing at town center there is an anchor store much larger.

Um so can we talk about the grocery store?

Is that just an idea at this point?

What's a small scale grocery?

Yeah.

Uh yeah.

For us it was, yeah.

I mean, it was something that we thought, you know, a walkable neighborhood store that's not you know, is not as robust as some of the other stores that are available for down the way.

It's like a nothing is set in stuff, right?

I mean, this is all very much conceptual.

Like, do we consider like a small scale grocery for something like this, something like Naiwat market?

Like that, I mean that's pretty big even.

Okay.

No, that's circle K.

Staying away from the uh gas station type idea.

Um I'm not familiar with the Naiwag uh market that you're referencing.

Yeah.

Um, that seems bigger.

But do you do we know what a small scale grocery?

But that is right.

I mean personally, I think maybe I'm speculating a little bit.

I think uh it would be a struggle to find a grocer that could fit on the small of a format.

Um, yeah, I think it's probably more of like a specialty grocery or something more along the lines of like I don't know if you've been to Mountain Fountain and Hygiene, where they have a little bit of like dry goods and some things, but then they also serve sandwiches, you know, that sort of smaller scale.

Yeah, if you're familiar with Denver, like Marchick is in the neighborhoods, and it's a kind of a gourmet idea.

Right.

Okay.

Okay.

The bouteille.

I'll pause.

Please keep moving on down.

Um just to clarify a question that was previously asked.

Um Commissioner Booth, you had asked, are there other locations that have the neighborhood commercial, correct?

So this was previously a land use class that was available in the 2015 version.

Um there are a few locations that had this.

Um they I believe they continued on, but there's very limited, they're all along county line, as well as uh uh where the medical building is on Erie Parkway, and also where the UMB former citywide in that area.

That's all neighborhood commercial.

Yeah, that's Erie Commons.

Yep.

Um so can you can you I'm I'm I'm seeing some differing um verbiage in terms of the application materials as well as the applicant's presentation in terms of what might go there.

Um obviously saying that this is conceptual in nature.

Um the applicant presentation notes will provide commercial business retail food beverage.

Um, and then there is a note about this saying that um anticipated tenants are a local market, other storefront retail.

Um talking about the market will offer fresh produce, small selection of groceries, prepared foods, and then we have the um we have the actual applicant uh narrative that uh materials page 10 says um is designed to serve the surrounding neighborhood with retail dining and service-oriented.

So are we looking at something that is sit-down restaurants when we carved out specifically the restaurant drive-thru or um what was it?

We carved out the so the allowed uses would be those on page two of the proposed PD amendment.

Plus that's what you're considering.

Plus everything in community commercial.

Correct.

That isn't prohibited or without excessive.

Right, that doesn't have the in.

It's a little bit older PD.

So there's a large number of potential uses, including restaurants that could potentially go there.

Correct.

Correct.

Yeah, food and beverage services.

Okay.

Is that by understanding of what is currently proposed?

We could have restaurants there.

Um you could hypothetically have a chilies.

I'm not saying a chilies is gonna go there.

You could hypothetically have a chilies there.

I mean, we couldn't fit a chilies into these into these buildings.

I think so.

I think like just judging by the scale that the you know, like the intention is for it to be much um lighter, smaller, more specialized um than that.

And um yeah, I don't I don't think we can like that I say we, but I don't think the owners could meet the demands of uh of most of the larger, like any like a larger chain type.

I could see like a bagel, a bagel shop, you know, to come in for a sandwich.

So that it's something of that uh you know, stature.

But I don't think that this site allows for a real sit-down, you know.

I shouldn't have I mean I can also say just architecture like a commercial kitchen would take up like a large amount of space in this.

So I think if there is going to be anything that's going to be like uh like uh you know something something that's like a lot lighter in terms of the preparation and um like all the the required infrastructure that you would need for that because it just like just won't fit correct but anything bigger.

But uh staff correct me if I'm wrong, we're approving zoning.

We're allowing any use that is available through the community commercial that is not prohibited.

It is you could have one building there, you could have multiple buildings there, as long as it fits within the PD, this is what we are approving.

We're providing a blank space of this is what can be done here in this, correct?

Correct, yeah.

So the allowed land uses would be anything in CC that's not expressly per prohibited.

Um and that that's the list on page two.

So hypothetically, if the current applicants aren't able to get something off the ground and they were to shift ownership to another individual, the next owner could walk in as long as it is facilitated by the PD within the guidelines of the PD, it could be anything that is basically allowed and it is extensive in terms of what is potentially available.

Correct, yeah.

So it would uh they would be subject to the same rules in the PD.

So um it yeah, CC is uh is you're right, a pretty long list of allowed uses, but it would be um none of the gas station, none of the car washes, um drive-throughs, anything like that.

Okay, and for um administrative procedural question.

If this were um recommended for approval or denial tonight, it still goes up to the town council.

If it were hypothetically approved by the town council, what are the next steps after that?

Where is the application seen?

Where is there a uh a chance for public comment to see what the actual build out would look like?

So the next steps would be if if the PD amendment were approved, um the next steps for the applicant would be uh a site at at minimum a site plan application and a subdivision plot application.

And uh the subdivision plot would be an administrative review, however, it likely would go on town council's agenda for can or a consent agenda for a development agreement.

Um and if there were any additional public utility uh easements being dedicated.

So the plat would go to town council and consent agenda, the site plan uh related to that discussion we had earlier.

Uh I can't say for certain, depending on where the square footage of the final proposal lands, whether it would be a site plan that comes to planning commission through a public hearing process or whether it would be uh under the 25,000 square feet and therefore be an administrative review.

So if it were an administrative review, our code does not require a subsequent neighborhood meeting.

Our code does require a subsequent neighborhood meeting uh if it were to come to planning commission.

Uh Carrie, uh if I can interrupt too, the the director can require a neighborhood meeting for any site plan too.

So if you all wanted to add that as a condition along with referring the site plan to you all um chair, um I know I have two questions, so if you want to keep around I'll give you one more that's just one.

Um I'm gonna no, let's keep going because this is gonna be one that rolls into another.

So yeah, all right.

Um is there any way within a PD to add restrictions on operating hours or lights installed?

Uh believe based on the comments.

If it was approved, that would be maybe a legal question.

I would think that a PD could a PD outline that could a PD restrict like everything operating hours by APM and you know the lights can't face out or something, like theory could in theory could that be already doesn't allow you to you know shine flood lights.

I just mean like maybe dark skylight.

Yeah, you can't do that.

Like it actually literally focused focuses straight down, or you can even angle it so the way for the sides of a covering okay.

Yeah.

That's great.

Yeah.

I mean you should be great.

You could just decide to move tomorrow and then someone else could go in and you know what I mean.

So I think that's more kind of what we're also establishing.

I think there's uh two probably two separate questions and two separate answers.

So lighting our code, our our existing code does restrict and so or does place uh limitations and guidelines on it.

So lighting uh at site plan, uh the applicant has to provide us a lighting plan, and so we look at that to make sure that lighting at the property line is not over one foot candle, which is uh strange unit of measurement for brightness.

But essentially we we do look to make sure that there's not uh at least on the lighting plan that there's not uh um lighting that will be spilling off property.

So that's sort of the lighting question uh as far as operating.

And I would just add, yes, you can restrict the height of light fixtures in the PD.

Okay, yeah, I don't know.

Yeah, going you're saying going more restrictive than what's ready.

Then what's in the current exactly, yeah, yeah.

Okay.

Um then this other question is more a procedural question because it seemed it was brought up by the public comment um with the current use that's been in place for almost 10 years.

Could a n a is a neighborhood park or a neighborhood pool would have been allowed under the current zoning, right?

Of residential, I don't know.

I don't believe I I think the way the previous PD was written was that instead of so this amendment is sort of like a a list of things that are prohibited.

I think the previous was a list of uses that are allowed, and I think it was just exclusively uh uh residential or medium residential and daycare.

So I'm not sure that uh land use would have allowed the previous land or existing, I guess today's land use would actually allow for a park.

Correct.

Correct.

And there have been a lot, and yeah, okay.

That was just my clarification.

Okay, just to clarify, you would ask the question about limiting hours.

Yeah, limiting operating hours within the PD.

Was that answered?

I don't recall.

Yeah, he said yeah, he said yeah, yeah, yeah.

Further restrictions.

Thank you.

Commissioner Burns.

Um just a couple of points.

Uh and I may have missed this, so I apologize if you already answer this.

Uh did you get an answer from RTD about whether there needs to be an improvement in the stop?

Uh like a dedicated pull-off lane.

Uh we did not get I don't recall R T D commenting on that through the process.

Our one of our transportation engineers, uh Miguel made the comment to me that uh that that is something he he desires um uh from sort of our perspective, whether or not uh what whether or not RTD sees a need for an improvement there.

I mean, I I think we have to work with them either way uh when we're making improvements to their stop, but uh I I don't know the answer off the top of my head about a pull-off lane.

I I know that what Miguel was talking to me about was uh improved shelter, uh, because I don't think there's any I don't think there's even a bench out there today.

It's just a sign.

Yeah.

Um just noting that obviously that would change the the site plan specifically where that sidewalk kind of comes along there, but um it's just uh I saw that note in the I think the town review comments um similar kind of comment.

Uh there was something that noted since we're disturbing more than one acre of um existing ground that permanent stormwater water quality would be required.

I'm not sure is that referencing a basin, like a permanent detention basin, or is it some sort of other mechanism to treat wrong?

So I I believe that refers to that threshold of an acre refers to state requirements around uh stormwater quality permits.

Uh I I don't think that requires a change from the existing but what I think what what we'll expect to see at the site plan and plat is that uh there would be utilization of an existing there's a storm drain on the east side of Miller Street that drains uh across sort of this southern frontage on Erie Parkway and then to a regional drainage basin uh farther to the west.

So I would expect that still would be the plan to convey stormwater that way.

And so then uh the state requirements I think is a permit just to prove that the um I I I think that the stormwater would not exceed what was previously calculated to be headed out towards that drainage basin, and then I think there's also a water quality component, so I don't know if there's I I guess I'm you are correct, yeah.

I'm speaking a little bit on it.

Has that quantity that's being added been accounted for, or if a basin a detention basin is required, obviously that's gonna change the footprint potentially a fair amount.

Yeah, all of that would um come at site plan.

They do that level of of uh calculation and analysis, and if there's any uh further public improvements that would need to be made.

Yeah, but uh it would be much any more than the daycare center would need.

Well, just because you're creating a large impervious surface, yeah.

And so um that's a question, I guess.

Um I think that was that was it.

Okay.

Um start with the easy one first.

Have we you'd mentioned Miguel and have you worked with John and Miguel about the traffic and pedestrian safety on like what potential mitigations they could do for an easement into this property?

So excuse me.

Some so sorry, so there is an existing uh traffic signal here with cross crosswalks, obviously, uh cross Mellair and Erie Parkway.

Um I think I don't know that we in our review um any additional crossing need was uh was identified except except across obviously where you would enter into the site, and so um uh the also the existing vehicular access would be still located at this southern corner um or southern side of the property, so there's no because of intersection distancing requirements, we're uh not gonna permit an additional uh egress or ingress off of Erie Parkway into the site.

So there were there will have to be considerations of how pedestrians are crossing that uh drive access, that drive aisle that sort of leads into the site.

Um but I think until we're a little further along into the site plan, we're not sure what those specific improvements would be.

Yeah, there were again a lot of comments about pedestrians on that road and making it pedestrian friendly, and the concern is if you just cut a cut into the curb and then make it a place for cars and not for people, the cars will go in however fast they want to go.

But if the cars know they're turning in and they need to look for pedestrians, I know there's decent sight lines in that area, so I think there's a good opportunity to build uh where that um where that conflict as we call it happens to make it a pedestrian friendly uh make sure the cars know that it's um there, and then they still have to cross Erie Parkway, which isn't pedestrian friendly at all.

So um expanding on Commissioner Booth and Salish's questions.

Um in section 1031, we have our table of permitted uses for community commercial and in the food and beverage service that we have broadly allowed, there are permitted uses for a tavern and nightclub and restaurant, and also a restaurant with drive-thru, but we've excluded drive-through.

Um in the current way that it's written, a tavern and a nightclub could be put in.

Um so I think there is value in restricting that um also to Commissioner Drekman's um comment about limiting hours of operation.

So is there I know you haven't talked about that, but I think that would be the guardrails that we're talking about is expanding the limited um uses, and that's one that could go in.

Yeah, yeah, I I'd like to ask a question if you don't mind.

Um I've heard um from Commissioner Salish about uh the concern that if we move forward, we've moved to the next step.

There are you know, and we agree to certain things, and let's say we don't get off the ground for whatever reason.

Um would not these restrictions still be in place for the next person, right?

They would still be there as part of this amendment.

So that would actually keep this in line with what we're discussing this evening.

They wouldn't be able to come back in and put in an 18,000 square foot restaurant because we would say that's not something we're going to do here and now, right?

Is that that's the idea?

Yeah, it's my understanding, but I wanted to make sure it sounded like there was some concern that somebody else could come in later on and alter things or or come in with a different mindset and and change the entire you know scope.

I'll let Commissioner Solwish speak to his concerns, but my concern is that I think maybe he was getting to that, but the tavern and nightclub are permitted.

Yeah, and they aren't explicitly excluded.

So if, for example, you did have to sell this lot, a nightclub could technically legally it could go in there, right?

Okay.

Um I'll keep sending it down anything else the main concern is the buffer that I have and in a PD you don't talk a lot about what has to happen in the buffer and it seems from what I'm hearing that if this was going to go through we would put a lot more restrictions in.

And the question is would we have time to list all those tonight in our resolution if we're gonna go that path is it so I guess maybe kind of this question for you is it possible to carry this over or is that or do we have to say yes or no tonight I would say I mean you could continue but I would say we should um the the commission should make a decision tonight.

Okay.

We are allowed to continue up to I think 60 days.

Yeah so we can right something different yeah that's that's for UDC amendments it's totally different.

It has to be a date certain a date certain yeah we can use and and direction clear direction on maybe what you wanted to see when we get to deliberation we can discuss that okay I'll wait for deliberation for my other issues because they're not really questions.

Okay.

Commissioner Booth do you have any I do have more questions.

I think during the applicant's presentation I think you talked about how it's zoned today um and how that how it's zoned today is not really feasible.

Can you talk more to kind of your your comments on that yeah I mean we had uh as far as my understanding is that it has been zoned for daycare for the better part of a decade um and there has been um no operator that has been able you know to come in and construct that from the ground up and find an operator who is viable and can continue that is just has not been available nor does it seem viable and then as far as uh more of a mixed housing perspective the large builders around here can build single family homes for less than it's gonna cost you know post-COVID for uh you know relative to how much it costs to build that and with interest and and construction costs it just does not pencil out for us um and maybe even if it did it wouldn't bring in you know it doesn't bring in the type of renter that maybe you know would be the most desirable for that neighborhood is is sort of you know our perspective okay um and then I think in the um application materials um there was a statement in there that the proposed development will house small local businesses they will serve residents in the surrounding neighborhoods they will be compatible in scale to similar retail and commercial uses approximately a half to one mile east of the site are we talking about like Walgreens that area Erie Commons area yeah that's just further down Erie Parkway okay Commissioner Sowish you want me to just run through the rest of them sure okay uh for staff just out of curiosity where exactly in the PD does it note that any use that is in community commercial except for those that are prohibited are allowed on this in this tract so that is at the bottom left hand side of page two under you under the I guess Roman numeral to principal land use categories table at the bottom of that the first uh first note is you uses not specifically addressed in this table shall be allowed according to the land use table in the UDC for the CC zone district okay can can you point me to that again where uh should be the bottom left corner of page two of the PD bottom left corner of page two you're on the proposed PD amendment item on the yes on the proposed PD amendment on the side it says note and then it has you got to zoom yeah it's small yeah it is small sorry okay so

Bottom left corner of page two.

You're on the proposed PD amendment item.

On the yes, on the proposed PD amendment on the side of the case.

It says note and then it has the zoom.

It's small.

Yeah, it is small, sorry.

Okay, so this is so this is basically a list of those that aren't allowed.

For the most part, yes.

Yeah.

If it has a Y, it is allowed.

There are a couple of it's confusing.

I think everything in CC that isn't with a with an N over here.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

It's and I will admit, so this is maybe not the simplest way to display this information.

There's on these older PD amendments, there's always sort of a balance between trying to maintain the existing sort of style that they're displaying this information and being able to update it.

So I I will admit, yeah, this table uh isn't is probably not how we would show it in a brand new PD today.

Um, but it's sort of the legacy format we're working with from this Canyon Creek PD.

Okay, but we're doing an amendment, so we could hypothetically have filing filing five with its own table that is straightforward because I believe the correct me if I'm wrong, the former track that was community commercials now wrapped in its own PD, which is the URI four corners property.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, so this basically is only to this property currently because that is not even applicable to that property anymore.

Correct.

Okay, so um is that something that could be due um would that be something that the applicants and staff could work on potentially um part of the technical you know technical updates to the PD where Mr.

Brennan, I believe you said this, and I've passed five, six years seeing these, it's been that way.

It's what is allowed, it's not what isn't allowed.

It is explicit in terms of what the current UDC says at that time, permitted uses, and it shows exactly what it is.

Correct?

Something like that.

I I think I think that we have a mix, yeah, honestly.

Yeah, it's sort of a mix.

I I think it is typical to have a list that is both the permitted and shows some lic or some items that are explicitly um prohibited.

Um that require special review use, kind of mimicking our use table.

And hypothetically, if we were to update the UDC and we were up to to update the permitted uses within community commercial at any time, but this PD says whatever the UDC says is permitted, it could fluctuate over time because it's not static locked in in the PD.

Correct.

Yeah.

It would yeah default to whatever the UDC says at the time.

Yeah, I think that's a a good good point.

That yeah, if the if this allowed land uses for CC was updated five years from now and it included some uses that we haven't thought about today.

Um because this today we're referencing back to that CC.

Uh that is true that it could potentially change with the UDC.

Okay, now what happens if hypothetically we no longer have a CC?

Then what would they reference?

Well, the CC, like if we were to do uh a new district, you would still have to translate that with the with the new code.

So I mean it would still refer back to we'd have to take whatever the CC district is.

I'm not explaining this well.

Um translate that into new districts, and uh it does make it more difficult for staff to administer on the back end, honestly, because yeah, then we're left going.

Well, what was the code back when we had CC and yeah, what did that become, if that makes sense?

Where you get these artifacts of like RPUs, exactly three, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So um for the applicant, would that be something that you'd be amenable to list these out in terms of what it is that what uses you do envision having there instead of having the whatever is in the CC less these things?

Yeah, I think that is something we're amenable to, yeah.

Okay.

Um okay, so I I know we've we've hopped around this, but uh the dimensional standards that are being requested.

Um so we have on one side we have everything that is in CC for the use cases.

Now when we're talking about the dimensional standards, we're looking at the neighborhood mixed use.

Why was it that we looked at neighborhood mixed use versus community commercial for the dimensional standards?

The so the um I might sort of start from the opposite assumption.

So I think we we were thinking about this being sort of a similar uh condition to a typical neighborhood mixed use.

However, we're not um we're not wanting residential here.

So we so I think I think we started with the assumption that this was sort of a neighborhood mixed use context, and that's why we start use that as the starting point for the dimension dimensional standards, but we didn't want to use that for the allowed land uses because that also gets into residential uses.

So that's why you're right, it is sort of a mix uh mix and match of what's in the UDC.

Okay, and if we look at the dimensional standards between the two, they they're purposely set up in a way so that they fit that purpose.

Um like community commercial has um you know interior line setbacks versus NMUs do not because of that proximity to the to the residential because of how they're gonna be cited.

There's a purpose to the NMU on why we have some zero line setbacks versus community commercial does not.

There is, yeah, and so community commercial, I think uh is is often an area found along these big corridors where you have more of a uh more land, um more setback from streets uh and and more land to deal with.

So you're it it's often the sort of uh larger larger scale commercial development where it can accommodate bigger, you know, wider landscape setbacks and things like that.

And I think we took a look at this and and under two acres, uh we didn't think there was a real viable option to develop it under the CC setbacks.

Okay, and I understand for the applicant, you know, we have very limited amount of land that is available here.

Um what was the rationale, the reason for wanting to go down the path of a zero foot uh setback?

So basically you can abut that property line on the residential side.

That's what I'm saying, yes.

Um I don't think we have a zero set.

No, so so the zero would be on Miller Street and the Erie Parkway, and then it would always be a 20-foot minimum uh when you're abutting residential, so that would always be a 20-foot on the uh uh 20 feet.

East and south.

And then there was a question about maybe the as the actual asphalt the parking lot was a little bit closer to encroached on that 20 feet, which is something that's definitely reviewable, and you know, you know, I don't know, but I thought the the buildings themselves had that 20 foot setback off of the south.

I'm looking at the side side interior, side street, both are listed um as zero foot setbacks, and on it this is the application pressure.

Yeah, that's a that's a that's wrong.

Like there, that's not what uh okay, yeah.

That's in the staff presentation, there is the yeah, with the staff presentation as is more accurate.

I'm page that's just 13 of the staff presentation.

That might be more accurate.

But the proposed PD lists zero feet for filing number five.

Uh but I'm just saying it it also lists uh side or rear when I'm butting a residential zone district is 20 feet.

That's in the table four on the same page too.

Covered in bubbles.

And the right side.

Or remember going through that true.

It was 20 feet.

Bottom right.

Okay, so we have side or rear abutting residentials 20 feet.

Okay, so we do have 20 feet from the property lines on rear.

So this is uh the south side, east side, and then we have the easements as well as setbacks on the Erie Parkway and Miller side.

Correct.

Yeah, and that property line doesn't go all the way to the street either.

So it's uh the sidewalk there uh is in the uh public right away.

So it would be a zero foot, I guess on the diagram that's on screen here, that zero foot would allow develop or a building to come up to that property line on the north side and the west side of the okay and yeah.

Do we allow um so this is setbacks for the actual building itself?

Um do we allow the parking spaces to enter into those easements and uh setbacks?

The way our setback it's a building setback.

It's a yeah, just building so as it's currently written.

So knowing that we have to have some um some barriers um for sight lines for headlights, those kinds of things.

Really there is no we won't have parking lots that are going up to the fence line right there, the property line, because we should have something that is extending that line to blockade from block the backyards of those homes right there.

Correct.

Okay.

Is that something that the applicant would be willing to have in the PD, noting that the even the parking lots would be X amount of feet away, knowing we're going to be using something to barrier that off as it is.

Yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

I mean, and in the other municipalities, like often that's like dealt with as a like a landscaping requirement, for example.

But um, you know, so maybe even though even though there is a setback, also there's a landscaping requirement which would prevent the parking from you know running all the way to the to the to the uh property line.

Harry, how would that uh Mr.

Brennan, how would that be addressed?

Uh that could be probably worded in a couple of different ways.

So I think um as just mentioned, that could be an additional standard uh that was a required uh landscape buffer, or uh it could be written into the PD that that 20 foot setback from residential also applied to things like parking and driveways.

Um the UDC already specifies that in those setbacks you can't put um things like trash enclosures, but it doesn't say anything about parking.

So um it yeah, I guess all that all that is to say there's probably a couple ways that we could word it, but um that that is something yeah, if the applicant was open to it, we could work on.

Okay.

Yeah, I I would uh I'm I'm gonna leave my comment about that to deliberation, but yes, thank you.

Um real quick, Commissioner Solwich.

It's 815, so if we can uh yes, what last question?

Uh 35 feet.

Um obviously this is what's requested as the maximum height.

What is planned currently conceptually?

Obviously, this is concept plan.

What is currently planned in terms of the number of stories?

Single story, single story, 20 foot height.

Okay.

Um, but again, hypothetically, if this weren't to actually get off the ground and it then were to be ownership were to change to somebody else, they could build a two-story building there that could be up to 35 feet.

Yeah, I mean, I think that it's a question for ownership, whether you'd be willing to well, I don't know if that question was possible, but yeah, you're it sounds to me like that is correct statement.

Hypothetically, that is a possibility moving forward for a uh for somebody else to come in.

That is definitely not our intention.

Okay, if obviously it's not your intention, would you be a memorable to potentially lowering that maximum height limit from 35 feet to something that is obviously you know single story but is within what you have planned?

And I know you architecturally you can do something completely different, but that way again we don't have the risk of it coming in and a two-story now falling through.

I we can commit to a single story building that is under that height restriction.

Okay, and that can be also added to the PD, I assume uh Mr.

Brennan?

It could, yeah.

Okay.

Um, those are all the questions I have.

Thank you.

Okay.

Commissioner Jack Benity.

No questions?

Commissioner Burns.

Just for deliberation.

Um I had something, but I don't think it was that important.

So nothing for you.

Is that good?

Commissioner Bird?

I I have one more question.

Um it's about the entrance into and we may this may have been addressed, and maybe I was studying my questions and didn't hear it.

Um the only entrance in there is going quite a bit of ways down Meller Street to get into that development.

I understand the limitations of Erie Parkway.

Um but if I think about town center just a little bit further down the road, you know, they are making right way enters into that.

Um you can actually cross Erie Parkway to get into that development.

Was there any thought or I just hate it going so far into a residential to get into that space?

I I don't think that there would be any any real way to make you know any sort of full movement off of I well, I I guess what I should say is that we we certainly could talk about it with our transportation engineers.

I I think it would be likely impossible to get any any kind of safe full movement access onto Erie Parkway.

Um whether there could be some kind of exit only, like right in, or I guess that wouldn't be an exit only, uh a right in write out or an exit only with only a write out.

Um I think we could we could certainly evaluate that and see if it could be done safely.

Just something to think about with the right in write out.

Yeah, at least I know some of the other complications that are there, but just wanted to mention that.

That's it.

Okay.

Um thank you.

The time is now 8 20 p.m.

and I'm closing the public hearing and then to commissioner deliberation.

Uh who wants to start.

Commissioner Burns.

I saw your hand because I looked that way.

Um so I wanted to just relate a personal anecdote about having a kind of commercial in the middle of residential.

Um 20 years ago, I lived in Denver.

Um in an area, my house was 100 and almost 100 years old back then, so it's a little bit over that now.

Uh in Congress Park, and uh where my bus stop was, it's two blocks away.

And there was a commercial center that was right on the the intersection of 12th Street and Madison Street, and right in the middle of the neighborhood.

It literally a buddh houses that were probably close to the same hundred-year-old bungalows, and shared fences and such.

Um they're all local businesses, small businesses.

There's a pizza place, a hair salon, there was a coffee shop, um, there's even a yarn shop that had knitting nights.

It was odd, I thought.

But but they were small local businesses, and I think that's kind of what you're getting towards, not like town center, which is I think much more franchise kind of commercial gear.

Um it was a tremendous thing to have in our neighborhood.

And and I I just wanted to bring that up in the sense of I know it's a concern when you're bringing in um this kind of commercial because you're bringing in people from outside the neighborhood coming through your your block.

Um, but it it can be a tremendous addition to the neighborhood.

Um this lot here doesn't seem like it's uh anyone really wants to do much with it.

Sure, an open space would be great.

I think that um ideally these kind of uh small businesses here could be uh a great benefit to this location.

Um and so I I I I guess my my message is just uh I wouldn't be afraid of it just because it's a commercial site.

It can be something very interesting and cool, especially for the people who who are living right next to it, and that's just for my personal experience.

Uh Chair Brodus.

Okay.

Uh in a lot of ways we're missing what I consider the elephant in the room, which is if this was something new, the whole development and the whole PD was new development.

I don't think we'd be having this discussion.

I think the issue is the impact on existing residents.

And so I think it's really important that we address the concerns that we've heard as far as having a reasonable buffer, lighting, uh hours of operation, things like that.

And I think without that, it's going to be for me difficult to approve something.

Uh I try to put myself in the position of the residents that are there now and know how I would feel if this happened.

Um so I definitely agree having residential and mixed use, rather, is a good thing.

We're doing that a lot of places now.

And um I think that's actually helps a lot of things in the neighborhood.

Um but there are legitimate concerns we've got to deal with.

And that's where I'm out on it.

Okay.

I can go sure.

I think the intention is there from the town.

I think the developer is the right developer for what the town wants there.

But I think further amendments to the PUD, like we've mentioned, um are necessary just to protect the neighborhood.

You know, you don't want to sell it.

We don't want another developer.

But I think you can't really just put faith in that.

So if it were if I just I was making the decision, I would you know say, okay, but there needs to be you know operating hours to make the, you know, because like you know, APM or whatever is appropriate for children, and then no bar, tower, and nightclub, the landscaping buffer requirements, um, less parking, and then you know, specifically mentioning the allowed uses and the prohibited uses, and then the single story, and I just think if those aren't in place, like I think the intention is there, but I just think it needs to be spelled out.

Commissioner Salish.

So thank you, and thank you, Staff.

I know we we this is probably the most questions we had on an application in a while.

Um first application we've seen in a while too.

But um you have the unfortunate uh luck, if you will, of the first of potentially many of infill commercial development coming to already mature neighborhoods in the community.

And I have driven by this property countless times.

I've known about the history of what they have wanted there at times.

It was gonna be a daycare, and then it was gonna be townhomes, and then it was gonna be, you know, so this is the next evolution.

I do see this as a good fit for this site.

However, that does not mean that a blank slate can just be completely blank and saying from wall to wall, you can do whatever you want.

If it is going to fit in here, it does need to fit within that area.

Um, a lot of the questions that I have, a lot of what uh Commissioner Dreckman just said is we need to have these guardrails in place.

We need to have the ability to say, if we go another 10 years where there's nothing built on here, and somebody comes and says, I want to activate this property, there's still those guardrails, and we're not sitting in that same position, or 10 years later, these residents or those who are now in that neighborhood come and say, I didn't know that this was possible.

However, um, Commissioner Vice Chair Baris, uh I am in the same same boat as you where I think there's a little bit more that needs to be done to really get this solidified on this document to say this is what is going to be there.

And yes, I understand it's conceptual, and I understand that this is not the last decision, it's not going to be that we we or council approves this and then it's there.

Um I do also believe that there should be conditions just because of where this is and the impact on the surrounding neighborhood that for the site plan, it should require planning commission review.

Um we can make a recommendation for that, but obviously the applicant would have to agree to that as well because currently it is in a miss uh administrative review, unless the director decides to do otherwise.

So that would be something that I would like to see as a condition for uh for approval.

Um I would like to see those uh allowed uses, not anything that is under the sun except for these prohibited.

I would want to see what you conceptually you have something in mind.

What is it that you envision being there, and then list those out.

And yeah, there could be some gray area where it could fit these, maybe not, but not having it where everything can fit there.

Um the setbacks for the parking because um just like my uh my commissioners up here were saying like there are areas where you can say exactly where this is.

I know this area over here.

I my first home was at Lowland Midway, and my townhome was basically five feet of a sidewalk, a fence, and then here is a conico.

And it was great.

I could walk over there and I could get you know a snack, a drink, but at 2 a.m., 3 a.m., you would have 15 PD cars out there because they're arresting a whole bunch of people.

So we don't want it so that it's that situation in this mature area.

That isn't what is envisioned here.

I do see these other individuals uh that has stood up and saying I do see this as a benefit.

Um sometimes these are actually a benefit, but if it is going to be a benefit, it has to fit in there, and it has to be something that the neighbors say this could work instead of a blank slate.

Um also uh the single story, adding that in to the PD or potentially lowering that 35 foot height requirement um to require to be single story.

Um the question I have is if this is a lot of conditions for us to put into an approval, or if we should potentially continue so that staff and the applicant can work on updating the PD to list all these things that are amenable to the applicants.

So that is all thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Booth.

I don't have um a lot to add.

Um again, I will say thank you to the residents for coming out.

Um this is really the most questions that we've had, and this one is a really challenging one for me.

Um you know, town center is coming right, like uh to me, it feels like just a few blocks down.

Um so um to Commissioner Sawash's point, like this it really has to fit into that neighborhood if there's something that's gonna go in there.

Um the walkability.

Um I I think we've mentioned several times we talk about walkability a lot, but then again, we throw in all that parking, um, which I know is you just adhering to what we have in our code.

Um I think that there's some of the things that we didn't really talk about up here is the pedestrian safety components.

Um I don't know if there's something that happened.

I do notice the orange flags that are there.

I don't know if there was something that um warranted that to be there, but I think that that needs to be taken into consideration um as well.

But I I agree with everything.

Um I think that there has to be several conditions, and I don't know the best way to do that, but there would have to be several conditions for me to give an approval tonight.

Okay, then I'll take the final comment.

Um, I do really like the idea.

Um I think there's a great opportunity here, and having something that is local is as Commissioner Burns mentioned, really could be an advantage.

But putting the guardrails that this commission has talked about, I think is will give a lot of um it'll make the residents understand that it's going to be a place that fits in.

Um I think as we talked about conditions, I would want to see a condition where we don't have parking minimums and that supersedes that will give the applicant a lot more opportunity to not put pavement on this entire thing, make it walkable, make it friendly uh to pedestrians because our parking minimums they they comply with it.

This is what this site would have to be without that.

So if we that would have to be a condition for me, the the setbacks they make I don't have uh a really strong opinion.

Um I'm fine with the site plan review because right now we're 17,000 feet, but if we remove parking minimums, we could be close to 22,000 feet and it's still low.

So if we enforce um uh or have the applicant, I don't know the mechanism for that.

Um, but if we have a site plan for the planning commission to give final public comment, because if this is the last time the the public has an opportunity here, um that's not gonna be a good time.

Um I think also to Commissioner Sawish's point of having these are the allowed uses table instead of the disallowed uses, so reworking the PD to say we're allowing restaurants, but um or explicitly restaurants, um, and then maybe we even have a line that says no drive-throughs and um effectively working it into uh you're allowed to build this year into the site plan and happy with the the height reduction 35.

Um happy with the the height reduction 35.

I don't know the exact numbers for buildings, but we did like a 22 foot total height.

I don't know if that works with uh um making sure there's a little wiggle room with architecture.

Um I've asked for uh things to get taller in my line of work and luckily I've been they've been able to accommodate that.

Um but if it can't, then that's the limit.

So I think from the sounds of it, we're all in agreement that there need to be changes.

Um at a bare minimum, this is approved with conditions, but the the real structure is um how we implement those conditions for us to do that approval.

Is that um I guess moving to staff is that um something that we would be part of the continuation and clear direction of the things we've talked about, or is do we just have a laundry list of conditions on our approval motion?

Yeah, so we uh the commission can decide you know, either option.

Um I think if you guys have the conditions and we can get it on the resolution and approval, then that's something the staff can work on for before it goes to town council.

Um or if you want it to continue it until dates are in and then staff works with the applicant to get all that information then it comes back to you.

Um so it's kind of your guys' decision.

When is it scheduled to be in for town council?

It is not yet.

Oh, okay.

So it's not like we need to do it by two by next week.

Um my fear with approving the conditions is the affordable housing approval that we had all those conditions, it was really I think they said it was so confusing when they read it.

So that's my concern with approving it with conditions and not just saying like either we don't or yeah, I think the they should be.

Because I have like seven, and I think Edward mentioned a few more, so I just don't see how feasible that is for legal like here's seven paragraphs, and but maybe they approve it with you know, like yeah, I think that's my thing.

Yeah, the difference I think is with the affordable, that was it ended up the wording of what ended up being was a denial.

Right, with conditions, which you can't do.

So um if if we're if the commission is going to do the conditions today, um it just needs to be clear that you are approving the PD and then with these conditions.

Recommending recommending approval.

If I'm not mistaken, I mean the the recommendation that we're providing is just a recommendation to council, we don't have to correct approve it as written or you know, or reject they can do take what pieces.

So I think that yeah, in terms of conditions, we can always put whatever we think we want, and then they can take out what they write on.

So I I don't know what that I would say.

I just mean that I just mean getting this whole group to agree on exactly what are the conditions.

Yeah, optimistic.

And and some of this isn't for us to develop the wording.

This is this is the applicants and staff are gonna have to put pen to paper and do this.

Right.

And then yeah, and I don't I don't want us to be sitting up here personally.

I don't want us to be sitting up here putting all these conditions in there when staff is then gonna have to do that.

So I would be fine with continuing to a date certain if that's um if the applicant is amenable to that.

Yeah, and the return process is we work with you know staff, and then do we come back on just from uh well I'll leave it to the uh assistant town attorney to provide that.

Yeah, so um you know staff would work with obviously the commissioners to make sure what the conditions were, and um, and then once those conditions are put in and you guys are ready to uh reappear in front of the commission, then we can um well they're gonna be date certain, so just to be prepared by that date.

Um I guess one other concern I have is a little bit we've talked about a lot of things.

I I I think that some of these things that we might be considering as conditions are really more applicable to site plan development or beyond, and maybe not to this discussion with the amendment for the PD amendment.

Agreed.

Um a lot of what you've talked about would be in the PDE, which regulates how the site plan is.

Okay, I just want to, you know, yeah, you've gone pretty deep for something that doesn't really exist in terms of a site plan.

Um, in order to have enough time and for notice and all of that, um, it would probably be um the earliest the second meeting in February, February 18th.

If you're looking for a a date certain and does that is that enough time?

You said that's time for staff to resolve all this.

Um considering yeah, it gives us a couple weeks to work with the applicant and get things cleaned up and what you want to see, and then allows for the notice to go out.

So six weeks.

I would think it's enough time, and then we can if if it's not for any reason, um then at that continued hearing we would continue it further, but yeah, I I think it's enough time if if the applicant feels that way, or if that date works for the applicant, yeah, yeah.

It does for sure.

Would that require a new notification for the neighbors and whatnot as well?

Uh it doesn't, if we continue it to a date certain, we do not have to ren notice it.

You're correct, correct?

Yeah, no, I think that's a great idea.

Let's give there a bit time to flesh things out, really put pen to paper, talk it through and make sure we're as close to the aligned as possible.

Does anyone up here disagree with that?

No, I greatly appreciate your flexibility for doing that.

Yeah, um, for the process of that, do we need to give that clear direction of yeah?

So I just want to just again just one caution before the commission makes a decision is the risk with uh continuing and having staff and applicant work this way is they put in all this work, we continue it.

The commission commit continues for six weeks.

Uh then there the recommendation happens, and then town council you know determines not to um you know follow any or some of the conditions.

Um so that's just something also to consider.

I mean we can't control that though.

Yeah, no, that's true.

That's true.

I'm just saying that is if we don't do that.

Yeah, that's exactly what happened with the affordable house.

Exactly.

Yeah, but the the difference in that was we had done we we did the conditions here, yeah.

Um rather than um so but we actually continue it first and then we do conditions.

Right.

Right, yeah.

So that was a little again a little bit different.

And and some of this appears to be uh technical amendments to the PD amendments, which obviously we we can't have the conditions of a PD amendments in that that has to be that applicant and the staff come back and say these are going to be added in so that when it goes to the council, it's actually in there for them to look at and view.

Yeah.

So that's a good point.

I do think continuing.

If I'd assume at the presentation for the council, you talk about the extra work that was put in after this meeting.

Yeah, that would be explained.

Yeah, yeah.

I I think there is value, and like I said, I think we're all in agreement that we're not approving this without conditions.

Yeah, right.

So I think that's pretty clear here.

Yeah.

Um I think it would it'd be good.

Let's uh give clear direction to staff because uh it sounds like we're going to continue to a date certain, uh, but they need the direction of what we are adding, and let's make sure we all agree with that.

So when it comes to us next, we can uh have a quicker meeting.

Okay.

Uh I got four items that are on here.

I know that there's a few others.

Um we were saying conditions, site plan requiring the planning commission requiring planning commission review, not the administrator review, because it would be under 25,000 feet if of course applicant is amenable to that.

It gives another bite at the apple for residents to see what is actually envisioned before it actually gets approved.

Um real quick, while we're going through that, let's just make sure everyone is happy with that.

Yep, good so far.

Yes, good okay.

Umes, not a list of not permitted uses.

So permitted uses for the site based on what is envisioned for this property.

Okay.

I like the prohibit I like both.

I think I think you know, saying like restaurant not drive-through, you know, no nightclub.

So you know so you're saying having both on there.

Yeah, just like if you're reading through a conservation easement, it would have allowed uses and private uses, and I think that in this instance, since we're so focused on like it cannot be these things, I think both.

I know that's more work, but I think both the question becomes if it's on neither list, what does it count as?

It's it's prohibited if it's not all if it's not a good idea.

If it's not allowed, I think you would say prohibited including, and then you would spell out the project uses like the town.

But we should probably put in a sentence saying if it's not on here, it is prohibited.

That's for the town.

I think we will decide, right?

I just like I think putting prohibited uses is pretty important.

Yeah, I I like that as well.

Okay.

Okay.

Does everyone like permitted and prohibited uses here?

Okay.

Residents get to talk again when that's right.

No, unfortunately not.

Um it goes to the I think you should vote on there's no discussion with the public, I'm sorry.

Um conditions.

The setbacks for parking, so that we have the setbacks for the sighting of the building, but then the distance from the lot lines for the parking as well, how far they can go and um that was another one.

Um parking setbacks as well as building setbacks.

I agree.

Um there was the height requirements or single story requirements.

Which ever makes sense for staff and applicant to parking?

Sorry?

Less parking.

Parking and yeah, we're doing one at a time, so everyone's happy with the height.

Sorry.

Yeah, parking's already on the list, wasn't it?

Hasn't made it there yet.

Well, that was part the actual parking, the sighting of the parking, but there was the um no minimum parking requirements, but saying that the maximum parking would be whatever UDC code um you know requires.

So basically anywhere from very little to you know what we require because essentially the maximum parking is like 20% more something like that.

125% is what we allow in the case.

So just saying that there's no parking minimum, but there's a parking maximum per the code.

Are we with yeah, something something to that effect?

Yeah, um see a traffic assessment is already gonna be required for the site plan.

So we don't need to have that.

Um was there anything else?

Is that five?

I have a couple.

I have five.

So there was the lighting and the landscape buffer.

Now landscape buffer maybe I don't know if that's in a PD or if that's only in the site plan.

It it would be in the PD.

Okay, so landscape buffer.

Do you want the so we have the setbacks for the parking?

Do you want us to detail it that it must be a landscape buffer?

Well, yeah, because I think it's important and it's up to the commission to decide, but I think it's important to have uh a visual buffer, if you will.

So it goes with the lighting too.

If we have a landscape buffer, we don't need a parking buffer then.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah, I think it's kind of we typically do a landscape buffer.

I think that could be one.

For staff, what makes the parking setback you're gonna do?

Yeah, she said she's okay.

Yeah, that works in that.

Okay, and I I would like more clarity on what prohibited uses.

I know you said night sorry.

Taverns and nightclubs.

Taverns and nightclubs, but are there others that that you would like to see beyond what was previously listed?

I I personally don't have strong feelings of what should be listed out.

I like the applicant to bring that okay for, but yeah, I think your your list of prohibited uses that are on there is a good start.

Okay, I don't think we have any issues with the current prohibited uses.

Okay.

So if that doesn't overlap, um we don't need a helipad there.

I saw that one as uh specifically not allowed.

So good to know.

Okay.

But I don't know if there's any other prohibited uses that that's what I think is redundant, but it's all right.

Yeah, I understand.

That captures what I had.

Did you have any commissioner Burns?

I didn't have anything.

Did is that cover your list?

Um just the hour like I'm just the uh the hours was but I don't I'm not I don't know if I'm that's not in that hill.

So how do we I just think since restricting reason for late?

I mean like operating out like I would say open to the public hours, I guess.

But I I think that's because he said that could be included.

I don't know if it has to be, but just since it's a big concern that at night it will be allowed that would be a way to avoid that.

Yeah, I'm not sure.

I I understand the sentiment.

Um but again, like I'm not married to that.

I think at least in my mind there's value in having the applicant and staff work on what makes sense there.

And if it doesn't make sense, that I don't know.

Maybe maybe we can say that's you know something that uh applicant and staff discuss and bring back to us with a recommendation of include or not, you know.

Great.

Love that.

Yeah, perfect.

That makes sense.

We don't want to make it so restrictive it becomes impossible to fulfill.

Yeah, no, I agree.

That's again you're you're the you're the lucky individuals to be on the front edge of this.

So um any other comments?

Because I think we've Kelly, have we given you clear direction?

Mm-hmm.

Um Gary, do you have any questions?

We will need a motion to continue to a date certain, and you said the February 18th.

Does that work with your calendar?

That works.

That works with staff.

So uh who wants to make a motion?

I got it.

Uh motion to continue 2026.

One to date CERN of February 18th, 2026.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Does anybody want a roll call vote?

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Um so we will revisit this on February 18th.

And we'll do that in the next staff report.

Oh well now.

We actually have we still have to report here.

Staff public uh thank you.

Thanks, guys.

Thank you.

And thank you all for coming out.

Chair Hempel, do you want to remind them that this is the first stage?

There's other opportunities to comment at the end.

There will be public comment at the next council.

Yes.

At council.

Okay.

Yeah, but for everyone who came in tonight, thank you again for participating.

Um this will go to town council.

You'll see the yellow sign out on the property.

Uh so when we see this in February, um after that resolution potentially passes, uh, you'll see uh there'll be a town council meeting where you'll be able to make a comment to town council who has final authority.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah.

So that concludes or the time is now 8 50.

Sorry for it's everyone's fault.

They've concluded general business and we'll move on to staff reports.

Okay.

Um no specific items on staff reports.

Um except I did ask that you Yeah, uh, we had a special meeting with council last night.

One of the items was um the comp plan.

Um can you have a council had loud?

It is loud.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Council had some questions about density as it relates to um particular properties.

So um the site at 111th and Arapaho gateway, and um what's known as Golden Run or Aaron Harbor's property.

Um we talked through that with them extensively and received direction to create an additional um residential category.

Um that would have a density range of six to twelve.

Um, and to apply that to the 11th and Arabaho site.

The other sites they we talked through um and they didn't want to see any land use designation changes for those.

This will all go through the same process that we did for the comp plan.

So we will have um public engagement, we will engage with those property owners.

Um it will come back to you all for recommendation and then go to council for um approval or not.

Six to twelve roughly correlates to what the old comp plan.

Yes, that is the old residential medium medium.

Okay.

So I wash that medium low and medium high was the idea if I understand it.

Yes.

Okay.

Yeah.

Which makes sense.

I mean, some communities have 20 different residential zoning classes.

Yeah, I mean, land use plans are meant to be not as granular as zoning, but but I understand the concern and why they wanted it.

So the direction is to modify the comprehensive plan.

Yes.

Effectively.

Yeah, and then um we did talk a little bit too about adding some more um policies to do with um guiding sensitivity, like like the conversations we had here today with infill development where it may impact um in particular the discussion was more uh around rural residential, because we have a lot of that on the edges.

Um, but you know, it it could apply to situations like we see here.

So tonight.

Right.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So that will all come to you all at some point.

We don't have a schedule yet.

So you did still working.

Not four hours either.

You know, 24 hours.

No, sorry.

Yes.

Uh Josh was going to come talk to you all about Old Town and the findings of that first phase of things.

Yeah.

Thank you.

And then we do have Melinda will be joining us again, um, but on the other side uh to talk through some UDC changes for the sign code at our next meeting.

Okay.

Yep.

Uh you got the advanced agenda out, so thank you for getting that out.

Um also note we have a quasi-judicial list on the website now.

We do.

Um so we won't be, I'm expecting we're not getting emails anymore.

Or maybe we are with like the attached PDF monthly report.

Yeah.

But yeah.

Maybe just having uh I think having a link to to click on that so it's easy for us to find.

Because I know I regularly search quasi judicial and outlook.

Um actually I like the way it was highlighted too.

Okay.

So we can do both.

Yeah.

We can do that.

Just for reference to everyone, that list is now on the website, and when we get public comments, just be aware of that.

One request is I don't know if it made it to you or not.

Um having a expand all button.

So you wanted to expand the seven different categories or whatever.

So I I were I I asked that of communications, and um it makes for a exceedingly long web page when you um have them all expanded.

So I wondered if if us, you know, sending you all monthly um the one sheet would be sufficient.

Um, and then you can go in, you know, if you want to see on the web page specific categories, click on the whatever works for you.

Okay.

Yeah, I like the the monthly email just as a reminder of what I can and can't talk about in public.

Sure.

Yeah, and I have expanded it all and looked at it, so yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

Any other I think our communications team, you know, they get sensitive about website design and yeah.

Okay.

Anything else?

Yep.

All right.

Time is now 8 57.

Finish off commissioner reports and discussion.

Um wants to start.

Just hope everyone had a great holiday.

Mm-hmm.

Commissioner Booth.

I got nothing.

Commissioner Salish?

Nothing.

Commissioner Trekman, Commissioner Burns.

I didn't write anything down.

So that concludes everything on our agenda.

So Commissioner Booth.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All in favor say aye.

I I don't think that's a real vote anyway.

But uh time is now 8 57 p.m.

and we are adjourned.

Oh my god.