Good evening and welcome to the February 18th, 2026 regular meeting of the Town of Erie Pointing Commission.

The time is now 6 30 p.m.

and I'm calling this meeting to order.

Please join me for the Pudge of Allegiance.

For which it stands, one nation under God and visible liberty justice for all.

Will the Secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth.

Yeah.

Commissioner Sawbush.

Live from Tonma.

Commissioner Dreckman.

Here.

Commissioner Burns.

Here.

Commissioner Baham.

Here.

Vice Chair Brodus.

Here.

Chair Hempel.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have an agenda before us this evening.

Does staff have any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

All right.

Does anyone want to request to make a motion to amend or approve?

Motion.

Direction.

Second.

Planning commission meeting minutes.

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

Motion to approve.

Second.

Directman.

That was Brodus and Dreckman.

Motion and second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

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

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

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

We have four attendees in the virtual waiting room.

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

No hands raised virtually on the sign-up sheet.

We have four people.

This presentation was specifically to cover the residential and mixed use categories, as we have been hearing those were of some concern.

So we wanted to take this in front of council to get some understanding and direction of where we wanted to potentially go with either some needs for amendments or some clarification with comprehensive plan.

While we did present on every residential category as well as mixed use, in the end, the only concern really lie with the residential medium land use category, which you can see on the screen in front of you.

As it's presented and seen within the comprehensive plan, that density is between 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre.

Now, to provide some more context of this, I wanted to showcase what does that mean for the town of Erie and the planning boundary as a whole.

What you are seeing in front of you are only three parcels that are undeveloped or not entitled, meaning of all the parcels that are designated as this residential medium within the town town boundary as well as the planning boundary, only three of them were considered to be new or under this new residential medium category.

Now, with the direction of council and the conversation that happened on January 6th, there has been a discussion of exploring what a new or additional category of residential medium could look like.

Specifically, this is exploring what we're tentatively or draftly calling residential medium low.

That would have a density spread of 8 to 12 dwelling units per acre, but we would also still be keeping this residential medium.

Now, whether that name changes to residential medium, high or stays residential medium, we'll discover that later on.

But that categorization would still exist, but now under a 13 to 18 spread.

With that in mind, there is also some need to address what that land use looks like on these specific parcels.

So we will be looking at specifically 111th and Arapahoe was the biggest talking point of what this new land use category could look like and potentially could exist as.

And then the last item we wanted to talk about again before I go into more of the details of what this looks like in terms of next steps is historic old town.

This was a call-out action item of the comprehensive plan, specifically as it related to doing a neighborhood plan to for just old town.

However, when we got to the point of wanting to kick off this project, we did want to take a step back.

We recognized that the ability to create a plan of this nature required us to bring staff or bring community members from the neighborhood onto steering committees.

So we took a step back and really wanted to embed ourselves into Old Town specifically, where we would have an opportunity to get to know the residents in a more close-knit manner, build up rapport.

We called this a social equity or social capital exercise.

This consisted of 11 different outreach opportunities.

Four of those were through town-hosted events, specifically where we did community coffee hours on the weekend at the park.

We did an ice cream social at the splash pad, as well as we did a neighborhood walk where we were able to have residents join us as well as residents be stops along the way, where council members, fellow staff, and other residents could just get to know each other more and understand the relationship needs within that community.

Why we did this is to really understand at a high level what it is old town community needs.

That is a big project to try to tackle.

What we discovered through these conversations is that there's a lot of incremental steps or programs or policies and procedures that we could evaluate to help assist and build up that community, that that trust with an old town.

And so through that, we came up with some quick, medium, and long-term items that kind of rise to the top of addressing some of the early-on concerns that we've been hearing within the community by allowing us to also still continue to build a relationship amongst with staff as well as amongst the community members themselves.

I'm not going to go through every single item that's on here.

But again, they're broken down into quick, medium, and long-term goals.

As we know that some of these projects just require more time commitment, more exploration, potential funding needs, whether that's through grant dollars or trying to have funding set aside in the budget, but just really exploring things that we can help enhance the community and support them as a whole and allow for them to build more trust within the town and especially with the staff as we try to create documents that are truly representative for them and what the community needs moving forward.

So that brings us into next steps.

And this is where I'm going to break down each of the last three items I talked about, specifically with the comprehensive plan and amendments and research that's been associated with those in terms of the land use category changes as well as policy changes.

First and foremost, transparency is key with this process.

The plan was initiated and created with a lot of community and support.

So the process of coming back with potential changes to what we heard from the community beforehand requires us to need to take this back out to the community again.

We want to first have this out in front of everyone to understand what these changes would be, what it impacts or trade-offs that might mean for the community, as well as just have that opportunity to have conversation back and forth just like we did for the initial adoption back in 2024.

With that also comes some technical research and technical analysis.

As you might recall, we did do a land use fiscal analysis with the comprehensive plan initially.

Again, that requires us coming back to council or coming back to the community for feedback and input, as well as coming to you all, because ultimately we would need your recommendation of approval before we would take this to council for final amendment approval.

Um so again, we we anticipate having conversations with you all.

Um I believe there are a few of you also served on our technical advisory committee and/or our our planning advisory committee or pack or tack.

Um so we want to bring back that group as well and rehab that conversation of uh where we are at with amendments, where we're going next, and also just again getting your feedback throughout that process.

Um this would operate the same exact way as we did with the comp plan.

Again, coming back to you all for adoption recommendation approval before going to council for the same process.

Um so again, moving into the UDC update, we'll be hopefully issuing an RFP here within the next few months.

Um again, we'll we're gonna work on building that scope as well.

So that may include having conversations with you all as well as other town staff to fill if the see if there's any holes or gaps that we may need to fill since we first started this conversation about a year ago.

Um, and then lastly, moving into historic old town.

Um, as I mentioned, we had the quick, medium, and long-term items.

Uh staff is going to be taking uh the next couple months to assess what these uh programs or policies could look like in terms of uh implementing within the town, also assessing whether there's any grant funding available that really helps with these more community-oriented grassroots efforts to ultimately lead to the outcome of uh getting towards either a neighborhood plan or um historic uh preservation focus of some sort specifically for old town.

Um I realize I went through a lot of that fairly quickly.

Um, and there may be more detailed questions that you may have.

So I would like to turn it over to you all and see if I can try to answer addressing to those.

Thank you for your presentation.

Time is 6486, and we'll move to commissioner questions.

Again, we'll do the two questions and then all the fun we do here.

Uh anyone want to start or should I just pick one of you?

Commissioner Salish.

Why not?

Um, so slide six uh the UDC items.

The last item on their increased use of standard zoning districts instead of plan development, PD zone districts.

Is this because we're basically coming to an end of these large parcels of land where they've required the PDs because of how expansive they were, all that was entailed in those, and now we're dealing with smaller pieces that are really in fill development that may already have those uh zoning classes on them, or what exactly is the idea behind that?

Because within the past you know, three to five years, it's been try to get everything to PD so that we can get what they want and it fits within their specific needs.

I think I'll I'm gonna lean a little bit on Sarah on this one.

Um, great.

Um, so Sarah Normella, planning and development director.

So great question.

This is something that every community wants to get to is to not have to be negotiating every aspect of a project.

And it's not necessarily the size of projects, but the intent when we redo the unified development code, our hope is that we are reflecting what's in the market now, what's being built, and so that our standards actually accommodate what people are building right now.

So we're not having to look at you know setbacks that don't work anymore or specific massing controls that aren't relevant.

So our hope is that we're we do have more straight zone projects and that we are updating the code to just um be able to accommodate those and you know, we're going to look into what does that mean?

Is it less standard, you know, less restrictiveness versus more?

But um, we definitely want to test that out.

Um you might have comment of uh standards that reflect what is being built right now.

Um if you remember with the uh alley loaded products, we were playing a hurry-up situation because we had so many of those that were coming forward to us through all those developments with the zero lot lines, and we're probably two years behind most of the developments that were already moving forward.

I think there was one, maybe two that actually use the zoning as it's set in the UDC for those products.

So is there a way we can be ahead of where the market is and try to think of try try to look at you know what other communities are seeing around the nation because typically those will come our way because trends change and there are certain areas that are trend setting.

Right.

Yeah, no, I I love where this question is going because um this is something that we want to flesh out with uh during the stakeholder process and the code update is that we want to work with developers and understand where are things going.

Um I think Josh mentioned earlier that you know part of our scoping of just the the process uh the update itself could include some of your thoughts as you've gone through and actually test it out, uh, you know, applying our standards.

So we want to be able to do our best ability, um, address what we know is there now, talk to developers, see where things are going.

And um, I don't think we'll ever just have it right, but we're certainly gonna look at other communities, what are they doing?

Um, and you know, we'll probably always have some type of plan development ability so that or variances or something that you know where we can have that outlet for creativity and new things.

Those are my two commission.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I particularly like the old town um aspect of all of this.

Um my first question is in there is a quote, I assume from a resident.

There are two old towns within old town.

What does that mean?

What are they thinking?

Yeah, so I I will say that that quote really stuck with me because I also very early on did not understand what they meant, and that required a lot of conversation that I think initially wouldn't have taken place had we not started these efforts.

Um, one of the conversations or this quote relay to um there's old town briggs, there's the commercial district, and then there's the old town residential.

Everything that surrounds um old town commercial area.

Um they they see the value in both, however, their concern is that they exist separately when in reality they're both in the same geographic region, they're both serving the community.

Um, is there a way to be more branded and identity focused in that um old town isn't just Brig Street, it's the entire neighborhood.

Um, so that was uh a very powerful quote that I I felt that a community member shared with us of how can we address this this uh isolation or disassociation uh within a neighborhood that's both considered old town specifically.

Okay, that's it for now.

I'll just keep going down the line if you're okay with that, but so let me that was one of my questions the other way.

The last update you would say approximately five years, and I I quickly looked and it was updated in 22, so I understand why you're saying five years.

Yeah, I didn't have any other questions.

All right.

I'll go.

Um I know in the past there was discussion of like a historic district, and maybe I'm misremembering, and I know I think you were gonna talk with the residents about that.

Is that did that come up during your so yeah, yes and no.

Um, I will say so.

That conversation is stemming from our historic preservation advisory board.

Um, it's something that's uh they've been interested in exploring specifically in having a historic district with an old town.

Um, in terms of the details and location of what that is, uh, that's not been um fine-tuned at this point in time.

Uh, in terms of having that as an outreach item, I know HPAB or Historic Preservation Advisory Board has gone out to a few events, um, kind of coinciding with the same timeline of us kicking this off in June of last year, uh, where they were just having some initial conversations with that.

Um, in terms of the efforts in which we were doing, uh, we were actually not going with any projects, concepts, um, anything in mind.

We really wanted the residents to um lead the conversation.

Uh, now if a resident did bring up uh historic preservation efforts, whether that's a land use district or um incentive programs for curb appeal or upkeep.

Um we we did explore those conversations uh further, however, we never uh went out intentionally trying to get them to talk about specific topics.

That way we could really truly understand the life impacts and what uh we needed to kind of address on our own through their voices themselves.

Uh so short answer, we didn't necessarily talk about it, but we do know historic preservation of some sort is a tool or a key aspect that we want to continue to explore with the community.

Okay, thank you.

Yep.

Then expanding on the two old towns.

Um part of the the projects uh to maybe bring it together.

I don't know where it's at, but when you're park was uh a conversation, and I know it's expensive and there's a lot of other expensive parks.

Do you know anything about that?

In terms of the items that are going on, I do believe our parks department is exploring irrigation for trees at Linear Park.

Don't quote me on that if they're not here, but I believe that is what I have heard.

In terms of the other actionable items that I know some of our advisory boards have presented on.

I'm not sure if those have been explored any further.

However, we we did hear from the community that Leonard Year Park needs some addressing of some sort.

So they would like to see some activations, whether that's uh community gardens, just having more tree line or trees along the walking path for shade.

Um that is like you said, that is a big and expensive project if something were to happen.

Um so I think for understanding what that looks like, it requires for us to go out and have more in-depth conversations as well as partnering with other departments to make sure there's um feasibility in mind and practicality as well.

Thank you.

Commissioner Burns.

Um Thanks, Josh, for that presentation.

I appreciate the update.

Um back to the slide with the UDC kind of bullets and the goals.

Um wondering how the process um to replace the affordable housing ordinance might fit into this.

Uh I see it kind of elements with this.

Um, and talks about diverse housing options and consistency with state law specifically.

Um, I know one of the uh issues had been the incentives that had been in the uh initial iteration of that ordinance and how that might be streamlined or kind of included, I guess, to you know, still provide that incentive.

Is that still part of the the goals with this?

I I will I will say we are uh working with um or are partnered with uh the regional housing partnership and understanding what can we do as a region collectively, uh, but as well as there is consultants from the state working or consultants working on understanding what our requirement is to be in alignment with the um with state's requirements uh by the end of this year.

Uh so we are actively having those conversations as well as we'll be having a joint study session on that topic here in April 7th, I believe, um, where we're hoping to bring that for a deeper conversation.

But I do think there is overlap of how that could fit or play into uh the UDC update specifically.

Okay.

Um and second question, I guess, is uh regarding like the I I know the focus on residential medium specifically.

Is there any thought of including um limitations of use similar to say the application that we might be talking about here later um that has a pretty comprehensive list of exclusions as opposed to some generalized per is that still gonna stay with the kind of PD agreement?

I think that would still, if I'm understanding correctly, um I believe the answer would still fall with the PD agreements in this instance, however, um I guess circling back to land use as a reminder, it's more of just a visionary item, it's not your regulatory um uh tool to limit use.

So really it I don't I don't know that that would be the most appropriate location for that conversation.

Um, I think it would be more in your UDC update in terms of aligning with your zoning as well.

But it seemed like I guess the focus of the um residential medium low is the density of the units, correct specifically, and that's it.

That's the only difference.

Primarily, yeah.

Um, and we just know from um the the built environment what housing typology is typically going to fit with and that that density as well.

Um so based on the conversation from council, uh there was some concerns that uh the medium density range as it is within the comp plan now offered a larger spread than what was desired in terms of housing typology.

So whether it's um duplexes to a quadplex, for example, maybe that's not the best example, but a quadplex could exist on that residential medium high versus uh a duplex may be more appropriate in some of these um more dense areas, but um maybe less qualified in terms of uh service needs.

So that's where that residential medium would come into play and providing different built-in bars.

It's it's I guess it just strikes me as it's a bit more getting into like the site plan phase later as opposed to the designation for land use now, if we're if we're kind of trying to box in the unit density.

That's a good point.

And I I think that's something we'll definitely need to be cognizant of when we're doing this research as well as bringing it back to the community.

Um and that's that's conversations we'll want to have with you all as well to to hear that feedback.

Um, because you you do raise a solid point there that um that put it could put a into a strange predicament.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Yep.

Commissioner Baham.

Uh on the community building blocks.

What's kind of the intent, I guess, of the context for uh sensitive design.

What are we trying to promote?

I guess with this, and since we're running out of land, what is this gonna do, I guess, for the continuity of brand or the identity of the yeah, yeah.

So uh specifically with the community building blocks chapter and our focus on trying to um address some of the community or context sensitive design elements really stems into the conversations um uh where we hear there's concerns of abutting uses.

Um so for instance, um having residential next to commercial property, uh, while it may um make sense uh visually, uh there is concerns, you know, uh landscape buffering, uh sound buffering, lighting barriers, things like that, uh, that we do have addressed within this chapter or throughout the comprehensive plan.

Um, however, we've we've heard concerns you know from the community as well as from uh council and other conversations that um there could use a little bit more emphasis of that desire of protecting abutting uses um while still promoting uh that desire for um more commercial and retail needs or mixing of housing typology uh and still trying to serve the community desires overall, recognizing that we do have a very limited amount of land that's still developable within the community.

Thank you.

Um that was basically my question.

So with the community building blocks additional policies, it's more just like implementation of like preserving agricultural character, like more sp just getting more specific.

Is that what they're okay?

Yeah, so each each of these uh these are goals within the comprehensive plan, that specific chapter.

Um we do have a range of policies that exist under each one of them.

Um however, we we have experienced even through our own reviews of applications and other conversations that we could use a little more emphasis in some areas, um, and this would be an opportunity for us to deeper dive into that and um potentially bring those back as amendment item for you all in the future.

Okay, thank you.

Wrap back around Commission Selwish anymore.

Of course.

Yeah, um, okay, so you on slide this is slide three identified um looks like three parcels.

Um just out of curiosity, the one that is old town.

Um actually let me clarify.

Uh when we're looking at that map, everything essentially in yellow is one of those that doesn't have uh generally doesn't is undeveloped or not entitled parcels, correct?

Correct.

Uh the ones that are circled.

Um anything in yellow on this map um represents all of the parcels that fit specifically under that residential medium category as the built environment shows it as well.

Okay, and then um there's that parcel that's uh right near the RTD line um between Briggs and County line.

Um is that currently OTR PLI, like splits that the two zoning classes over there?

That pro that property?

Yes.

Yeah, and just for clarification, what do you mean?

Old town residential and public lands and institutions.

Thank you.

Yes.

Okay, so that's a unique one.

The the dark green is um the public lands and institutions because it's part of that open space chat.

Okay.

It's kind of hard to see it in the scale.

Have we um I know we went through a massive exercise while drafted this.

Have we gone through and identified all parcels that are undeveloped or not entitled?

Okay, correct.

Um because there's a lot a lot on not on this map.

Um I would assume that this is just specific to the residential medium aspect.

Yep, okay.

Isn't there a map in the comprehensive plan?

Yes, there's yeah, in the comprehensive plan, there's a map with all the annex or properties that are not annexed.

Uh annexed but not developed.

Yes.

Yes, yeah.

Yeah.

Yeah.

I think I mean I I don't I just remember reviewing one.

Yes, it isn't.

I think it's yeah.

Um okay, and then when we for the UDC updates, um obviously there's no the the ones that have come front and center since this has been adopted or went to public hearings.

Um are we also going to be codifying some of the conceptual design policies to make it so that those stick in terms of our UDC, so we have this idea of you know a walkable community.

Do we then have it so that the UDC is actually saying it has to be a walkable community or you know, something to that effect?

Is that the is that what we would envision for these UDC updates, or is it the hard numbers, those things that we know we can, those are the ones that we're gonna hit, or are we planning on other ones that are more I don't want to say abstract but abstract?

So we don't quite know how um you know we'll structure the UDC at this point, but um I think what you're potentially thinking about our character areas and how those might have um different districts that are within them or that make those areas up, and so they may have as a result numbers, standards that relate to the type of character you want to achieve.

So you in a walkable area, you may have um may discourage or not allow um front-facing garages.

You might want to have alley loaded product um and a focus on the pedestrian environment, or you if it's residential, or you might have zero lot line setbacks in a commercial area, or so those types of um goals that the area might want to achieve, like walkability will have to be translated into standards.

Okay.

Uh chair that's too.

You want me to keep running, or you want to run through the line again?

Run through the line again.

I'd like to finish this agenda item by 715.

So you get any more, Commissioner Booth?

I'm set.

Uh just uh a small comment from me on the old town.

You mentioned the there's like the dumpster day thing.

Is that potentially working with sustainability and that with like the cleanup days?

Uh yeah, I think that's um this is something we've seen in other municipalities where um the prov the service provider for the uh trash was able to provide a dumpster for a period of four hours on a Saturday within the neighborhood to allow for the opportunity for people who may not be able to get um items within their yard or um inside their house and get rid of them and take them to the landfill.

Uh they may have a better access to have that uh done in their community.

Um but with that that we want to make sure we're also working with our town departments, um specifically sustainability, as they do a lot of these efforts um already, and um hopefully be able to either provide potential of composting days, um, recyclable days, um, or even dumpster days specifically within old town to really serve the needs of um our our aging demographic or um individuals who might not have access to transportation.

Okay.

And then last more of a comment looking forward to the uh UDC update.

So should be good adventure.

Anything else, Commissioner Burns?

Commissioner Sowish, you got under 10 minutes.

Okay, uh we should be quick.

Um Old Town Briggs uh possibility of the sub plan.

Um so three items.

Um with the creation of town center, there's been a concern that that will become the new downtown and basically leave old town in the dust.

Was that one of the concepts that was discussed, or was that brought up in your conversations?

I would say there was uh a few instances where the community members did um bring up town center, uh, but more as seeing town center as an extension as um old town themselves, rather than seeing it as a potential of um the life and action that's happening currently moving, that wasn't necessarily something that I did hear.

If anything, what we did hear is the desire to want to see the the wealth of attention and attraction to spread elsewhere to be part of the community as a whole as well.

But really, they saw town center as uh as an asset of being able to serve their needs and um uh needs and wants within close proximity.

Uh so in terms of it being a concern that um old town will lose its its attention, um, that wasn't really something that rose to the top um with the community members that we discussed with.

But we do want to be cognizant of that as well and making sure that we're not detracting um from one piece of the community from another when it is developed.

Gotcha, okay.

Um so in terms of the future of the old town area, um, we're seeing redevelopment occur.

Um, we have uh 105 wells, we have the uh the property that is proposed across or next door to the post office, and then um the Peripee building.

Um we know that there is going to be more revitalization.

There have been conversations about some of the businesses on Briggs, changing look, adding stories, you know, those kinds of things.

Um has there been a thought into a plan of what that could be in the future or what we're seeing that move towards because there's been conversations on the council side of a natural progression along Briggs one day.

Um, and again, we're looking comp plan, you know, 20, 30 years out, which 20, 30 years out, very possible.

Um, so has that been something that has been discussed or looked into as part of this potential sub plan?

Yeah, so that would be included, or that discussion or focus would be included in what we would might refer to as a neighborhood plan or sub-area plan, uh, specifically for old town.

Um I don't want to say set in stone that all of these topics would be a part of the discussion.

A lot of this will be discovered through further conversations with um the URA, the bid, um downtown uh residents as well.

Um but a good way of considering a comp or a uh neighborhood plan is thinking of it as a miniature comprehensive plan.

It allows for us to address transportation, advised for housing needs, economic development, um, and get a little bit more specific in the details of needs.

Um, again, in alignment still with the comprehensive plan, as it would most likely be um adopted as uh assisting plan to that as well.

Um, but that economic that revitalization, that vitality piece would exist in that uh more comprehensive neighborhood plan focus when that will happen.

That's part of our process that we're gonna be going through here as we try to do these more incremental steps to build up to that bigger conversation because that requires a lot of uh community input, and again, we want to make sure that we have as much transparency and rapport going into the repository process so that the outcome is truly as representative of the community as possible.

Um thank you.

And then the last question.

Um there's obviously been conversations about the page property about what this is going to become.

Um what are the plans for making this comp plan a living document?

We are now a year and a half or so since it's been approved.

Um, the authority of the creation and approval has shifted to the council.

Um what is now at what increments are we going to be making updates?

Um at what points are we going to be saying, hey, we a year and a half ago drafted this, but you know, we really think we want to take another pass at it.

Um, what does the process look like?

Is it entailed within this process that we're going to be going through with this consultant?

Because if we're going to codify things and we want to come back to things, we don't want to have it so it's well, we're gonna do it now, but we're immediately going to come back to it because we've done that once and it just took a lot of time and effort and money.

Um, and then the other side of this is um the comprehensive plan future land use zoning map.

We used to have or we still have an application um for amendments to that future land use zoning map.

However, back in 2021, um, the former town attorney said we are no longer going to be making any amendments to the future land use zoning map, which it used to be that's how you start the process.

You started where there and then you went to rezoning.

Are we at a point where we have that process settled now?

Um and I know I keep looking that way too because um obviously we've shifted now town attorneys.

Um but again, page property.

If that changes to something otherwise, what is the process to update the comp plan in those situations?

Um Josh, I'm happy to lean on Sarah for that one.

Thank you.

Yeah, I will some of that came in um to play before you know Josh.

Before we even had a strategic planning group within um the town.

So our our previous comprehensive plan didn't quite have um the legal language that we were happy with in terms of being able to update it.

And uh the update to the comp plan does uh set forth a process for updates to it, so we can go back and update the plan that's the land use plan that's in it.

So just to clarify, it is the land use plan that is in the comprehensive plan is the visionary land use plan, and then zoning is separate.

So as you mentioned, it's a two-step process.

It's uh ideal to have your comprehensive plan align with your zoning code.

And so now we are at that point where we we are able to do that.

So while um our ideal is to have the comp plan be a living document, usually that means we're updating it pretty decently every five to seven years.

We're going through evaluating the land use, uh, you know, seeing if there are policies that need to be updated, et cetera.

Um so that's our general cadence right now, you know, through direction from the town council.

We are doing a minor update.

And I think that's you know, that that does happen, right?

Um, we don't have any limitations on how often we can update our comp plan.

Sometimes communities do set limitations, they might want to do it once a year, four times a year, et cetera.

At this point, um, it's not so common that we're having to limit it.

And we think we're you know, it's reasonable to be asked to look at an update.

And um, I I can't imagine this will be the last within the next few years.

Uh, we may have page property, we may have somebody some other property um and some applicant coming in wanting to um ask the town council and the planning commission to reevaluate the vision there.

Thank you.

And uh Chair, I apologize, two minutes over.

That's all.

We do what we can.

It's a fault.

Talk about all right.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yep.

Appreciate it.

Our second item is 2026-100 public hearing, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval of the Canyon Creek Plan Development Amendment number 11.

Before we start this one, as a part of this, we need to close agenda item 2026-1 from our January 7th, 2026 meeting.

We continued that item to a date certain of today.

Due to changes that we proposed at the January 7th meeting, staff and legal determined that a new public hearing was required.

As a result, new notices were published, and the public has been afforded another opportunity to provide public comment on the application.

Please note that the comments and discussion from agenda item 2026-1 will be a part of the public record for this item and can be referenced from the meeting minutes.

Without objection, I'll close item 2026-1 and we'll continue through this item 2026-100.

No objection.

The time is now 7.18 p.m.

and I'm opening the public hearing.

Turn it over to Steph and then applicant for presentation.

Thank you, Commission.

So, yeah, back before you this evening is the Canyon Creek PD amendment number 11.

Um I suppose I'll try to go a little faster through some of these upfront slides.

Um and then focus more on what's changed since the last time you saw this application.

Um, but just to jog everyone's memory, this request this evening is for a PD amendment.

Um following a recommendation from planning commission, uh, this application would still need to go to town council for a final decision.

Uh and then we still would be looking at uh site plan and plot applications uh before any development could occur.

Uh the property is at the southwest corner of Erie Parkway, uh or sorry, southeast corner of Erie Parkway and Mellor.

And it is currently in the Canyon Creek PD uh designated for um residential and daycare uses at this time.

And the comp plan, we're just talking about residential medium.

Comp plan does designate this as residential medium.

But of course, our comp plan also lists secondary uses that go along with each of these categories, and neighborhood commercial is one of those secondary uses that's anticipated.

And as we talked about last time, there are a number of specific goals in the comp plan that staff found were related to the or related pretty specifically to this proposal here.

So thinking about activity centers in each neighborhood, encouraging in field development, and then trying to cultivate a mix of local, unique, and creative businesses.

And there's a fair amount of infrastructure in already.

So the sidewalk and curb and gutter are in the waterline and sewer line is in as well, and stormwater infrastructure that this would tie into.

So now I'll get into the more specific of the proposal and sort of what's changed since we last saw it.

Did want to recap the neighborhood meeting that occurred back in December.

This is sort of an abbreviated list.

Some of the concerns were buffering and more specifically the impact of lights, privacy from the homes or for the homes, adjacent landscaping, and perhaps using that as screening between the two uses, the commercial and residential.

Definitely some concern about uncertainty over future uses and how those future uses would be compatible with the residential.

And then also pedestrian safety, being that this is on a pedestrian route, and you might have students or other types of pedestrians as well.

And then at our last planning commission hearing on January 7th, a lot of the same concerns came up, and some of the same ones came up.

And so we we left that with some direction from planning commission to look into some specific things.

So one was parking out here because the parking requirements we identified were maybe not consistent with the idea of this being more of a neighborhood walkable oriented type center.

The character of what the setback was going to look like between commercial development and residential and being sure that that actually functioned as a landscaping buffer and wouldn't also include things like parking lot or drive aisles, those sorts of things.

Again, we we talked about uncertainty around future uses, and one of the concerns was that the use table as it was presented and the PD amendment on January 7th.

So I'll talk about that a little bit more in a couple slides.

So there was a request to lower that from 35 feet to 25 feet.

And so back to the uses.

So that was a good comment.

And what I think the direction for Implanting Commission was that it would be more helpful to have in this PD a more comprehensive list of our uses.

So what's now included on the PD amendment document itself is actually our full land use table from the UDC.

And so line by line the base that was started with was the CC zoning, and then it's more restrictive than the CC, so certain things were moved to either special reuse or not permitted.

In particular, like the drive-throughs that we had talked about last time as being something that was not consistent with the idea of sort of a neighborhood center.

So this again is sort of an abbreviated list.

You'll see the full list on the PD amendment itself, but uh uses examples of uses that would be allowed by right, are again daycare, um retail uses, bank, office, restaurant, pharmacy.

Um we call or we use the term commercial amusement and door to refer to things like a gym or fitness center, um, urgent care, medical office, personal services.

Uh those would be uses allowed by Wright, and then things that are specifically prohibited.

This was also a similar list to what we had on the last version, but no auto repair, no bingo parlor if such a thing still exists.

No car wash, cemetery, crematorium, funeral home, RV storage, light industrial, pawnbroker.

I guess I won't go through the whole list, but uh drive-through uses, nightclub, um, sexually oriented businesses, marijuana businesses, those would all be prohibited uses.

And these are primarily the same dimensional standards that we saw from last time, with the exception of the height uh was proposed at a 35 foot height limit in the last version, um, and what the applicant is now proposing is 25 feet to bring the scale down a little.

Uh and then we again we talked about the parking um minimums that didn't seem like they were really aligned with the intent of the uses out here.

So uh we would still enforce the parking maximum, but not the park month parking minimum.

And then getting specific to the uh the required setback, the 20 foot required setback in between uh the commercial uses and the residential uses uh must be landscaped that must include uh evergreen um types of plantings, and it may not include uh buildings, parking, or driveways, anything like that.

Um and then, of course, we we do also have our standard um commercial development standards that would apply to this as well, or would apply to any future development here, I should say.

And uh as I mentioned, so any um if this if this zoning were to be approved by or this zoning amendment would be approved by uh town council, uh the next steps would still be uh a site plan or multiple site plan applications and uh minor subdivision plot to consolidate the properties as uh today they're uh they've been platted out into uh townhome lots.

Um we did talk about uh I wanted to mention we did talk about at the last hearing uh whether we could require whether we would require future site plan applications to come back to planning commission.

Um so that has not been included in the application or in the PD amendment uh as it exists before you tonight.

We want to talk about that a little bit more.

Um I might also call on uh Canada helping uh sort of explain it, but my understanding is we couldn't add that actually as a um condition of approval, so we can talk about that more for sure.

Um but as we know, this uh site is of extreme importance to the neighbors and compatibility is gonna be really important here.

So we we just wanted to list some of the key considerations uh if this were to move forward would be thinking about how buildings are arranged and how the site features are arranged to try to minimize off site impacts, including uh light, noise, smell, uh, all those sorts of things.

Um, and yeah, being sure all that was adequately screened, uh promoting this as something that's truly walkable, uh leveraging.

I think last time I mentioned there's a bus stop uh just on the north side of this property on the Erie Parkway front edge.

And so uh we would look at trying to enhance that bus stop to make sure we were utilizing some of this multimodal transportation, um, and then possibly reviewing operation plans uh for future users uh to think about uh noise and hours of operation and things like that.

So with that, staff uh do find that this application meets uh or is consistent with the approval criteria in the code uh and uh recommend approval with our standard uh condition to make sure that we uh capture any necessary technical corrections prior to the hearing at town council.

Uh and as Chair Hempel mentioned, uh we did treat this as a new separate hearing from the last one.

So we um the applicant went through another round of public notice posting before this meeting.

And with that, I believe uh the applicant also has a few slides to go through.

Yeah.

Hey, good evening.

Dominic Schwartz again, uh representing Emerald Development.

Um in fact, I think we're just gonna cruise through these.

The only slide that is updated, and to my understanding that is relevant is the uh we didn't even highlight it, but this the you know, the site drawing um as of right now, sort of uh we've updated the the parking spaces, the setback to remove you know originally we had put the 84 parking spaces per city code um or city regs or town regs, pardon me.

So that automatically cut off about 21 spaces.

Um we're also showing the building height being capped at 25 feet.

It is still our intention to have a single story building, which should come in under that, but that is just sort of a way to kind of add a bit of a buffer.

Um I think that's roughly about it.

Otherwise, the that presentation is the same.

Um I'm not sure if you all would like to just discuss the actual changes that we've committed to that were presented with the slides, or you would like me to read that uh you know, sort of the introduction that is part of the packet that was submitted.

If you want to read your uh letter, you can, or um after your presentation, we'll be doing public comment before we do any questioning.

Before we do any questions.

Okay.

Um perhaps it's good for the public to for the neighbors to be able to hear what we what we did change and amend.

Um, so in any event, um, I just want to thank everyone for letting us come back.

Um we did again uh incorporate everything that we had heard and from the neighbors from the commission from uh from everyone to to really kind of reflect and and and make the commitment necessary to hopefully uh you know allow us to move forward in a way that is uh taking everyone's considerations into uh consideration.

So in any event, um basically we wanted to be thoughtful about these commitments and how they're and how we wrote them out.

The plan development standards will be recorded and will run with the land in perpetuity.

Our goal is to address today's concerns while preserving a reasonable level of flexibility so the property can serve the neighborhood over time and future residents can still participate in what comes next.

We believe the best outcome from putting firm design and compatibility guardrails in the PD, then using special review and site plan conditions to address tenant-specific operational topics when they are known and can be evaluated with real information.

So some of the amendments that we made.

So the parking standard, we revised the PD to eliminate any minimum parking requirement within the plan of development, while leaving intact the town's UDC parking maximum framework.

This preserves the town's upper cap on parking while allowing the site plan to write size parking, reduce paved area, and allocate space to landscaping and pedestrian circulation.

As far as the residential setback and buffer, we reside revise the PD to clarify that the minimum setback adjacent to any residential zone district is a landscape buffer area that must include evergreen shrubs and trees, and may include fences, site walls, and additional plantings.

I don't know why.

We also revised the PD to prohibit the following within that minimum buffer parking and vehicle stalls, drive lanes and circulation aisles, trash and recycling receptacles or enclosures, signage, and light fixtures.

This makes the residential edge a true landscape and screening zone rather than a functional service zone.

For the land use table and prohibited uses, we revised the PD permitted use framework to include a clearer, more complete land use table that mirrors the town's UDC use classification format so it is straightforward for the public and staff to administer.

The intent is to remove ambiguity, ensure the plan development standards themselves establish the tenanting guardrails.

As far as the building height and separation, we revise the PD to reduce the maximum allowed building height consistent with the commission's preference for a lower scale form adjacent to residential.

We also added a minimum five-foot building separation standard.

This improves the kind of compatibility and aligns with common life safety and maintenance expectations.

As far as future site plan review, um, we kind of requested to leave this open because we're incorporating the the idea is that we're incorporating these specific guardrails into the PD amendment, which to my understanding is a legally binding document and sort of re so having to necessarily come back to commission at this point is cumbersome and feels somewhat excessive given the amount of opportunities the public has had to actually come back and comment.

Um so given the prior opportunities for public participation, adding the step feels like it's gonna cause more delay and further costs.

And then um as far as operating and operating hours, we acknowledge the concern phrase regarding operating hours and late night impacts.

We share the goal of preventing adverse impacts to neighboring homes, particularly related to noise, lighting, and outdoor activity.

So as part of an enforceable and practical approach, we want to keep the PD focused on clear use and design guardrails that shape what gets built.

Use special review and site planning conditions for operational topics like outdoor activity hours when a specific tenant or use is proposed, and the town and the public can evaluate real details.

For any tenant or use proposing outdoor seating, outdoor events, or amplified sound, the tenant improvement applications submitted during the permit process will identify potential issues that may not align with the character of the neighborhood.

And continue to rely on and comply with the existing town performance standards for noise and lighting with additional conditions applied where needed based on the specific use and site plan.

Basically, we believe this approach answers the neighborhood concern, keeps public involvement in place, and gives the town meaningful tool tools to manage impacts without guessing today about future tenants.

So in closing, we appreciate the commission's direction on the neighborhood's engagement.

We have incorporated substantive changes into the PD standards and exhibits, and we are committed to continued coordination with staff and the community as the project hopefully advances.

And that's what we got.

Thank you for your presentation.

Time is now 7 35 p.m.

Um we go to public testimony, and I believe we have people in the waiting room and signed up.

So let me go by we have four people in the virtual waiting room, two of which have signed up on the sheet.

So I'm gonna start out with well.

Please do.

So public comment is limited to three minutes per person.

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

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

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

You will be given an audible warning when you have 20 seconds remaining at the three minute mark.

The light will turn red for in person, and we will ask that you finish your final sentence.

You're giving comments virtually.

We'll ask that you wrap up and mute your microphone.

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

And I'd like to start with in person and then virtual.

Yeah.

Okay.

In person first.

We have uh Chris Joseph.

Oh, please come up to the uh item here.

Go ahead.

Yeah.

Okay, my name is Chris Joseph.

I live at 536 Munio's Court in Erie.

I've been a resident of Erie for over 20 years and lived at that residence.

Um I'm here to express my opposition to this change in zoning.

Um a little history of this.

Uh, when I first moved in, it was zoned as a daycare.

Um it went to auction, and uh a local resident was outbid for this property that they wanted to build a daycare center by someone else.

Um years later, this new group wanted to change the zoning.

That's when it became mixed as well.

And now here we are again trying to change the zoning of this property for um a developer.

Um there's not enough room on this site for what's being proposed.

There's no trash cans, there's no dumpsters, there's no grease traps.

There's a restaurant in their drawing.

Um, a lot of that's omitted, it's just built to look pretty right now.

Um, it puts resident retail directly in the backyards of established areas residents.

Uh Mellar Street cannot handle the additional traffic.

It's a main walkway to Red Hawk Elementary School.

Um, our children walk there.

And also with all the development, there's gonna be more traffic on Meller and Austin already.

So adding this additional will put more traffic in this neighborhood.

Um, it's in the middle of this established neighborhood.

The ingress and the egress of this drawing goes directly into someone's backyard.

Um nighttime headlights are gonna shine into neighborhoods, backyards, and houses.

The trees, um, they're not enough to mitigate.

They won't even impact that in the slightest.

I mean, they're gonna take 10 years to grow.

Um the additional needs of this property, such as deliveries, trash service, uh, rooftop HVAC units, makeup air, exhaust fans, grease traps, all this is gonna cause noise.

Um, and there's just not enough room to buffer that between the residents.

Um businesses are gonna have to have employee parking.

Um, employee parking becomes employee break area, employee smoking area, so they're gonna be smoking up against residential houses.

Um, and the lights are gonna cause uh light pollution for the neighbors.

Um, dumpsters, there'll be smells, there'll be pests.

Um, it's gonna be hard for residents to enjoy their backyards to go out and sit in their backyard and and just relax.

Uh I think it would be hard to leave windows open as well.

The noise of a restaurant, um, all these things, it's just not right for that spot.

Um, and additionally, it'll increase crime in the area.

Um, so I think the residents vary near this property in conclusion, I guess, should not be hurt financially.

Uh because and have their enjoyment of their properties diminished because of a bad investment made by a developer or a property owner.

Because and have their enjoyment of their properties diminished because of a bad investment made by a developer or a property owner.

Thank you.

Appreciate the time.

Thank you.

Who do we have next?

We have no more in-person signed up for this item.

Oh, okay.

Um could you come up and state your name, please?

Um I'm Ryan Durfee.

I live at 601 North Bashir Court.

I live directly behind the adjacent to the entrance to the new site.

Um, do you have the pictures that you showed earlier of the site?

This is an interactive, just apologies.

Um I'm gonna echo what the other neighbor just said.

I went around uh over the past few weekends and talked to all the neighbors that ring the property, and every single one of them was aligned that they were against this, and all for the same exact reasons that you just heard.

This is not only a massive change in traffic, you're going from a daycare center that might have 60 cars a day coming and going to retail site that at 17,000 square feet, you can run the basic numbers in order to make the math work to support that much retail space.

You need at least 600 cars a day on average.

That's average.

That's not like high.

Um, and that's just based on rough math of what like penciling out like the average ticket size and um what it takes to support retail in this area.

Um, so you're going from roughly 60 cars a day to 600 cars a day.

Every single house along this property sits up high.

Uh our main floors are all six feet above grade, which means our view is 12 feet above grade.

Those little trees, like he said, will not grow in for 10 years, and even then, you're not gonna buffer 600 cars a day plus all the people going coming and going every single day and all the noise that comes from that.

We all bought into this neighborhood, understanding that this would be a daycare or residential, which we were all very comfortable with.

And I frankly wouldn't object if you put you know two or three shops up on the corner away from everything else and a little bit of parking up on the corner.

Wouldn't object to that at all.

But you've got 600 cars a day that need to go in and out of that egress right behind my house, and they're going to be parking and shining their headlights and talking and enjoying their space right behind all the neighbors.

I didn't find one single neighbor that rings that entire space that felt otherwise.

I'll be sending a formal letter to you all this evening or this weekend with the email addresses of all the folks that I talked to and all that supported it.

Um again, I hate to be the NIMBY guy.

Um I used to be in real estate development, but you know, this is really a developer saying we just want more money.

I don't believe that this deal doesn't pencil as multifamily.

I believe that maybe either the developer is paid too much and needs to acknowledge they need to take a loss in this real estate market, or the developer is just asking for more money, like give me a bigger, you know, give me more density, give me more traffic, I can make more money off this.

That shouldn't be the town's problem, and it shouldn't be the burden of the neighbors to take on that lowered property uh value just because of uh a developer is is seeking additional funds.

Um that was all I had.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

Sounds like we're going to virtual next.

Or we have one more.

Sorry, I thought it's only that for audience.

Yeah, come on up.

Good evening.

Um Ray Miller's 1672 Bain Drive.

Um, we live we've lived there for about 12 or 13 years, and the makeup of our neighborhood has changed incredibly.

So many young kids right now.

Babies, the past five years, I can't even count how many babies were born in our neighborhood.

Um, my concerns are basically that introducing a commercial building into a neighborhood uh setting will be inevitably change the traffic patterns based on well-documented uh planning outcomes.

We can expect major impacts because of increased traffic volume, more turning movements, and higher average speeds.

More cars mean more conflict points, especially at driveways, intersections.

Increased turning movements are particularly dangerous because they're one of the leading causes of pedestrian and cycle cyclic collisions.

I'm sure we don't have to remind everybody that the past week we've had um some issues with uh pedestrians being injured, and in one case, um killed.

So when traffic volume rises, drivers also tend to accelerate between stops, which raises speeds and significantly increases the severity of injuries, which um when crashes occur, even a small increase in speed can dramatically rise the risk of fatality for pedestrians.

Neighborhood streets are designed primarily for local access safety, not for commercial traffic demand.

Uh bringing commercial activity into the environment increases exposure for people walking, biking, and children playing nearby.

So I urge the community to carefully consider whether the existing street design can safely accommodate these changes.

Uh, and if not, to require meaningful traffic calming and safety measures before approving any development.

Um, this risk is being borne by the residents and not the developer, and public safety must remain our top priority.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else in person?

Let's move to virtual, please.

We have four people in the virtual waiting room, two of which have signed up.

First person who signed up is Jennifer Barry.

And you need to unmute Miss Berry.

Okay.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

My name's Jennifer Barry.

I'm at 544 Amino's Court, Erie, Colorado.

And my main concern is um that it is going to be a lot of traffic, and there are a lot of kids across the street that go to that elementary school.

I was watching them from my back porch.

I don't have children, but just watching the amount that were going to school and coming back from school.

And they come in like waves.

So it's hard to like really time when they come.

And I'm really concerned about the children crossing the street and then adding traffic to that.

That is already there.

I'm also um concerned with possible crime if these buildings were to stay vacant for a while.

It seems um that we do have other stuff that's going up right down the street.

And so these buildings may remain bit vacant, and then that would lead to crime coming into my backyard.

Um, and the buffer, it looks like that was taken care of from the last meeting.

So I do appreciate that because I am one of the yards that is like right, will be right on that parcel of land.

And that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Next person signed up virtually is Jeremy Tieber.

Please unmute.

Hi there.

My name is Jeremy Tiber.

Um, I'm an Erie, Colorado resident, and I just started timer, so I'm not going to go over.

Uh, I was born and raised in Colorado, and I've lived in Erie for 18 and a half years, 18 of which have been in North Bashir Court on a house that I own.

I've seen a lot of growth in the Erie, and I'm happy to see it still growing.

So, like, I'm not opposed to growth, and all this sounds really good in theory, and I appreciate the efforts that you guys are trying to do, and even like the new case that has been presented here with more setbacks and overhangs, but I just don't think that we're there yet.

I want to echo again the sentiment that people have already said that we and that you guys said last time that we don't really want to have this impact.

The housing, there we're worried about trucks and lights and late night deliveries and trash.

But when I see the new uses that are allowed that were presented here earlier, there's restaurants that are allowed, urgent care is allowed.

Those are late-night businesses, those aren't minimal impact businesses.

So even though you're making strides and excluding things like sexually oriented businesses, restaurants and urgent cares are giant impacts to a neighborhood, um, especially with hours of use.

And also, like when you eliminate parking minimums, where are they gonna park when it's full?

Is that gonna overflow into our neighborhoods?

But one of the biggest things that I'm really worried about, because I have two kids in elementary school and the elementary school that's down the road on Meller, isn't on a bus route.

So our kids don't have bus access to that school because we're so close, we're expected to walk or bike.

And as was said earlier, kids go in waves past that that lot.

And you know, when kids are walking by, they're incredibly an incredible danger of getting hit from people pulling in and out of a lot like that, especially if there's more traffic in that intersection.

But then I look at this on a whole, and I'm trying to understand why.

Why we want to put this here again?

There's so much commercial that's going in at Erie Town Center, just blocks away.

Why are we putting this here?

You know, if you're saying you earlier said there's minimal areas for housing that are already here in this in that have been set for housing, you're taking more housing away.

You took in the plots that I've seen on Erie Town Center, you took retail away from there to put in more housing.

I don't understand where you're trying to put this retail here.

When there's empty fields blocked southeast of this area, just empty fields where we could put this all this stuff in.

Like we're not out of space for commercial, but this is the wrong spot for it.

It's going to increase crime, it's increasing noise and light pollution.

We've already been lied to several times about what's going in on this lot.

Like the town has been held hostage by these developers that hold this lot hostage in hopes that you guys are going to change your mind and bend to their will.

And I what we're asking for is for you not to do that in this case to hold what it was supposed to be.

Somebody wanted it to be a daycare.

They tried to be it to be a daycare, and it got held hostage by a developer.

Please keep this as a neighborhood.

You know you wouldn't want this in your backyard, and we don't either.

And we're excited to have the retail that we're gonna have blocks away that we can already walk to.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else?

There are two more guests virtually.

Um please raise your hand if you would like to speak.

Seeing no hands raised.

No final comment?

Okay.

Uh time is now 7.50 p.m.

What applicant and staff like to make a response to any commissions before we go to question or any of the comments before we go to questions?

Or do you want to go to questions?

Uh I might just add for clarification.

We're uh this site plan that's up right now is not being approved tonight.

So we are only if if well, nothing's getting approved tonight because planning commission makes a recommendation, but uh the only application that's in front of planning commission tonight is the the zoning.

So um this site plan would not be approved tonight um by any means.

We would be staff would be going through a um or or the applicant would need to go through an entire separate process with the staff to do a site plan application.

So I just wanted to clarify that we're not approving tonight what's on the screen right now.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would just add that this is not a site plan.

This is a drawing.

Yep.

Uh so we'll move to commissioner questions again to questions.

We're running a little late, so try to be uh be quick and go back around.

So I'll start with Commissioner Trekman.

Okay, um, just based on the feedback we've gotten from residents, can you explain like quickly, and I guess quickly do you like the difference between zoning and a planning plan development?

Because I think zoning is a lot harder to change, right?

Within a so can you just explain maybe the difference between those and how Erie uses them?

Yeah, so zoning um zoning sort of sets out the broad guidelines for development.

So um that that's what we use to you know indicate whether um this area is for commercial or residential or some kind of mix of uses.

Um but but generally at that stage, we're not picking a specific use and saying this is the use that's gonna go right here.

I know PDs sometimes do get that specific, but generally that's that comes as a sort of the menu of options of these are potential uses that could come here.

Um and in particular, that's that's uh sort of the early stage, and a lot of times developers don't know for sure what the specific end user is gonna be.

Um, and so that's why they try to build in a little bit of flexibility of um an office or a restaurant or that that sort of thing.

Um so then, but but it does memorialize the rules for development.

So uh after that fact, uh or or after a zoning um package or a zoning amendment is approved, uh things like setbacks are established, so those can't be changed later on.

Um however, once we once we really get into the fine-tune sort of development of the site and think about what the building looks like and where the parking going or is going, um, what the landscaping looks like, uh that that all is a separate, more detailed process that we get into with uh site plan and uh plot application.

And and that's when we look to make sure that the development is indeed consistent with all of those development rules that we'd established through zoning.

I know that was probably kind of a no, it's I mean all over the place answer.

But that's good.

Yeah, and then my second question would be if if we recommended approval and then the um and then it was approved and then they came back with a site plan.

Would a traffic study be required then?

Absolutely, yeah.

So that would be uh required or one of the submittal requirements uh that we would need with a site plan and plot application.

So it at this point, um, yeah, you'll notice that in the application there isn't a lot of detail on traffic generation, and and that's because there's at this point still a question over what specific uses would be going here.

Um because when we do uh when when an applicant provides us a traffic study, uh they they need to actually calculate, you know, X square footage of retail um results in this many projected uh car trip generation um that sort of thing.

the submittal requirements uh that we would need with a site plan and plot application so it at this point um yeah you'll notice that in the application there isn't a lot of detail on traffic generation and and that's because there's at this point still a question over what specific uses would be going here um because when we do uh when when an applicant provides us a traffic study uh they they need to actually calculate you know x square footage of retail um results in this many projected uh car trip generation um that sort of thing so we we definitely yeah would be reviewing that in detail when we get to site plan and plot okay thank you thank you commissioner bah uh thank you for the application uh to the applicant can you explain to me in a little bit more detail uh the impact on on the Jason neighbors in your opinion is this gonna be a benefit to them as far as access to say a storefront that they actually occupy or is this just a resource or um community um amenity that everybody can enjoy I think if it's done properly the idea is that it is a neighborhood walkable store community neighborhood store is it a resource for the greater community absolutely you can't deny that but that's part of the reason of cutting back the parking trying to hopefully incorporate walkable paths through the area through this through the site for the children going to and from school or bikers all of that is to try and bring it together so that it is something that really is valued.

And I know that might not seem you know attainable in this moment but it is something we are striving for.

Well it it's a little nebulous because you don't know what it is yet what what's actually going in there.

Yeah.

The site diagram is truly just a diagram.

It's an idea that's being flushed out right through a comprehensive yeah yeah so create the vision for me of what what the neighbors would see out of this that would create a benefit.

That would create I'm sorry a benefit a well I mean we are envisioning a one story you know building so it's not terribly tall so you know just from a visual perspective.

We've talked about bodega as the corner stores you you know it have local you know if there are actual local artisans that might actually want to participate in in these spaces um you know the we it could be hair so you know hair salon could be a barber shop could be a place you know it could be you know the bagel shop it could be uh a yoga studio um you know things that are more focused on pedestrian activity as opposed to uh people driving from far and wide um is something that I think we see as a real ad to the local neighborhood okay and some of the challenges I guess you'll work through with with a full site plan you'll you'll have to account for lost parking some of the uh circulation throughout the space and then deal with utilities and everything else when this and really see if it's really see if it works yes yeah yeah um the zoning is really just the question if this works within the context of the community correct yeah okay in your opinion it does I think it will yes all right I mean here in some of the neighbors' uh comments on this there are some challenges with that and I I'd like to see maybe a little bit more advancement of addressing that directly that's kind of the questioning that I I kind of come up with to build a relationship with the community that surrounds with the neighborhood and and help tailor this responsibility because this is going to be a process to help yeah definitely move this in one direction or the other yeah and I think one thing that I would throw out there right now is that well the prospect of coming back to planning commission during or after site review seems cumbersome I would wholeheartedly embrace another opportunity to take site plan to another community engagement and get that feedback and continue that site review with that feedback.

Okay thank you Commissioner Burns um I kind of beat on the uh a similar uh topic uh to commissioner's name and and the uh I know I want to acknowledge I guess your comment in yes the process can be kind of seeming repetitive um the PD amendment is binding in the sense it establishes the limitations of use but um be aware that because we don't have the specifics the reason why um it was suggested to come to planning commission to come to council again um with these steps is we're gonna want to know what this is to make sure that um we're comfortable as well as the the neighborhood with what is actually going to end up going in and so it's not the intent is to to to be on your shoulder the entire time it is to make sure that yes this is comfortable we don't have we established this from the from the initial um hearing was you know we're not gonna have a traffic study so I know people are talking about the concern about the extra traffic um it is it's it's gonna be something here but we don't know and so it's hard to say specifically what we would be looking we can't tell the people who live here um

We don't have we established this from the from the initial um hearing was you know we're not gonna have a traffic study.

So I know people are talking about the concern about the extra traffic.

Um it is it's gonna be something here, but we don't know, and so it's hard to say specifically what we would be looking.

We can't tell the people who live here.

Um similar to you know, we don't know exactly what um other kind of um I want to use the word pollution, but you know, we talk about light uh smells, noise kind of things might be experienced until we get a better idea.

So I I think that yes, I understand it is kind of repetitive going through multiple cycles of this, but it absolutely is a reason for this, especially in the neighborhood.

Um, because you can see the the concerns, and we just I think everybody just wants to be comfortable with this.

Um, I personally think it it's a benefit.

Um I mentioned this in the last meeting as well.

The um I've lived near these kind of commercial um kind of centers in the neighborhood.

You can walk to you tend to get these more local businesses, you don't get the the kind of franchisee businesses that we're gonna probably see more of in town center.

Um so you know, there's definitely options there, it can be a benefit, um, but there's legitimate concerns, and um so um I think that it is up to um Ms.

Romella as the manager um whether this does go to a uh either administrative review or ultimately you know her call.

But I think that this is consistently what we've seen why we're having these multiple kinds of hearings, and seems like we're beating this into the ground, but yeah, it it's it's to make sure we're not just saying, yeah, have at it and we'll see what goes in.

Um so I just wanted to kind of I guess to acknowledge that that part of the statement.

I understand that there's absolutely reason for it now.

So that's good.

Okay.

Um for staff, you mentioned the legal reason of not putting the site plan on the PD or a site plan review no matter what on the PD.

I know if we have over 25,000 square feet of usable space, it requires a public site plan.

Um, but what were the the legal challenges of not requiring a site plan no matter what?

Yeah, so the um so yeah, no matter what a site plan will be required, but yeah, yeah, as you mentioned.

Currently, the UDC specifies that um site plans with a gross square footage of less than 25,000 square feet is administrative approval over that uh is automatically kicked to a planning commission approval.

And so um last time around we had talked about whether we could sort of uh do away with that threshold and just say that any any subsequent site plan that comes um comes before staff would then also have to come to planning commission for approval.

And so the way I understood it is that uh we were not able to impose that type of restriction on the review in a in a condition.

So uh pretty much what Harry said um in 10 10, 7, 10 E.

Um, I it's pretty clear that the director gets you know review and decision, but then you know the director has discretion if there's complications, if there's modifications, if there's things that you know he or she can't just approve, then it does go to planning commission.

So there's still that step, but um adding that condition would go against the code.

So that's why we're not that's why we remove that condition.

Okay.

But the that the director choice could would be preserved um as that is in our code.

Yeah, they don't just skip site planner, it gets all it doesn't get rubber stamped.

Right.

Yeah, um, and then this is more of a technical question on the PD document itself.

On the January 7th version, there were a lot more pages with a lot more words that I didn't actually go through, were again um, and they aren't there in the latest version was where all of those words captured in the table.

Is that what happened here?

Or they're missing pages.

That was some suggested cleanup um uh originated with staff uh just because many of those pages specifically talked about the various residential planning areas, um, and then order to be more clear about what was changing and what was being specifically allowed for this planning area.

We just recommended taking some of those pages out since they they specifically listed uh design standards for um residential development.

So that's why it's shorter, and um but yeah, the the all all the languages that dealt specifically with this planning area is still in here.

Okay.

Okay.

So the issue here to me is mainly the expectations when people moved in.

And so my questions are going to be more towards had this been planned at the beginning, how it compares with what's happening now.

So one question is things like the buffer between the houses and the development, I think it's more for you.

Um how does it compare to a new development that has both mixed that has mixed use?

Is this buffer comparable to what would happen anyway, or is it different?

That's a good question.

Yeah.

So what um this 20 foot buffer that would be required under this proposed PD amendment is greater than what so if this property today um were to develop with uh townhouses, the way it's been platted out is actually that there would be an alley um directly uh against the east side.

Um so that would be right against the backyards of those homeowners there.

Um if the property today were to develop, I guess it couldn't unless the lots were consolidated, but if it were developed with a daycare, the setback from the residential areas could be uh ten feet to an interior lot line.

It doesn't distinguish um between um and there's no buffer no no buffer required today's, yeah.

So in essence we're putting in a much bigger buffer than would have been had it been well let's go instead of had it been daycare, had it been commercial, like what this is doing now with the buffer again for a new development where it has again mixed use, so it has commercial next to residential.

What size buffer would be required today for if everything was new?

Does that question make sense?

There are no buffer requirements.

That is one of the big issues that we need to fix in the UDC update.

Okay.

Uh for clarification is 10618 H applicable, which requires a minimum 30 foot planning area composed of screening landscaping required when the site is adjacent to a residential zone property.

Can you save the section again?

I'm sorry.

Can we go back and when your time for questions?

Yeah, please.

Yeah.

Excuse me.

Second question is similar.

How does the bus stop that just happen to be there for tuitously?

Uh you normally wouldn't have something like that as a requirement for a new development.

It just helps to make it uh more accessible.

Is that a true statement?

Yeah, and we I I suppose at at this stage we can't um because any any of those sort of off-site improvements that a developer would contribute to would need to be negotiated in a development agreement during the plot stage.

Um I can't say for sure that that we could require or that we uh we would get a result of an improved uh bus station, but um I can say that's staff is interested in asking for in that development agreement.

Yeah, because when I think of the residential I'm sorry, other commercial it just luck of the draw if there happens to be a bus stop there.

And you wouldn't get a new one just because you built this.

So all right, thank you.

Commissioner Booth.

Um my questions are for staff.

Um page seven of your presentation when it um talks about the comprehensive plan, you mention in there E12 the encouraging of infel development.

And when I look at that on the comprehensive plan, it really talks it kind of refers to residential more than anything commercial.

So can you explain how that applies to this application?

I think uh E point one point two.

Um I I think that's more broadly in fill anywhere.

So any any property that just hasn't been developed or is sort of laying vacant that's in in the town.

Um I think I think most of what we have in the town currently is residential.

Uh or or the vacant property that we have in the town currently, uh, I think for the the most part is uh zoned residential.

Um so there's not a lot of vacant commercial land in Erie because we know the demand is pretty high for that.

Um but I think I think this is more generally uh sort of focusing development efforts uh within previously developed areas in order to be able to benefit from existing infrastructure and not have to invest in um extending the water lines or extending sewer lines, those kind of things.

Um I think that's sort of the essence of the U.1.2.

I don't know if uh Sarah or Kelly has anything to add to that, but I mean again, so the the comprehensive plan really speaks to historic old town and then um existing neighborhoods.

So maybe the comprehensive plan should also I mean talk about bringing commercial into those areas potentially.

I don't know.

Um my next question on was on uh page 14 when we talked about the permitted uses.

Um I thought I heard you say that a drive-through would not be an allowed use.

Is that correct?

Yes.

So on the uh yeah, so it's broken out in in the land use table that's on the PD amendment.

Um each specific type of drive-thru is called out specifically, so there's no on that table, there's no uh just broad drive-through category, but there is um restaurant with a drive-through uh bank with a drive-through and I believe pharmacy with a drive-thru, and all of those are uh not permitted.

Perfect.

I missed that.

Because those were the three I'm like those all three.

The wording was a little different, yeah.

Okay, perfect.

Thank you.

Commissioner Sellish.

Thank you.

Um, so back to uh the question, uh will there be any outdoor storage, anything to that effect?

Um envisioned for some of these um these establishments.

No.

Uh will they have anything outside uh there let me let rephrase there were comments about um the potential of dumpsters of grease traps, etc.

So first question is when you look at the property and seeing the landscape and restrictions that are currently there, where would you envision something like this?

A trash receptacle or a potential grease trap.

Well, that's a good question.

I mean, right now it's hard, like you know, as the fact that there are no you know locked-in vision for who that tenant exactly is hard to say where that can go.

Um but now that we've taken the setbacks there, I would probably have to go back to our architects and ask that question, like where they might see those dumpster and the recycling so that it is you know in an as non-invasive as possible.

I mean, I I'm not you know trying to put the cart before the horse.

But when we talk about these different types of establish establishments that may be there, and we have very stringent restrictions and rules in terms of where they are supposed to go or can't go.

So for instance, they can't go into any of these uh the buffer areas, right?

So the question is um again, this was a concern that was brought up.

Um, where could one of those go in the property?

Because generally where you decide you want to put it could bring in additional restrictions and items pertaining to that.

Yeah, I can imagine uh building a trash enclosure, so something that's enclosed, you know, and so it's not as visible, but uh at that entrance and egress, uh right around the corner, taking a few, a couple two to three parking spaces potentially, or even further up north towards the retail building adjacent to it, you know, to carve out a you know rectangle of sorts that would then allow uh pickup to be well probably a little bit easier uh for garbage truck to pick it up that way, and that would be also on the Miller side and not on the uh neighborhood side of the property.

Okay.

Um thank you.

But I think we have we would probably really look at doing uh something enclosed.

It it requires enclosure.

Okay.

So it would have to be um so the other item um was obviously the headlights coming in and out of.

Um we also have in the UDC um fencing and and walls um in the B C C R C L I P D A G A G H A P zones, etc.

Um when the land use is adjacent to a residential uh zone district, you have to have a solid material fence wall or combination of earthen berms, fences, walls, etc.

Um when you look at this 30 foot buffer area.

Are you envisioning a wall just before that?

Are you envisioning a wall just after that?

Because depending on where these types of things might go, and I know cart before the horse, this isn't the landscape plan, but this is something that needs to be included in the thought process of being able to get this at this location.

Are you talking about we're talking about the east side?

We're talking about south and east side.

South and I would I would look for that to be on the outside of the landscaping zone.

Okay, so east and so further east, further south.

So essentially there is already a fence there.

So we're talking about two fences that then are parallel to each other.

Well, it depends, I guess, what the I'm not familiar with the exact code and the height of that fence, but the one that we would be required to erect.

Perhaps there's a conversation for replacing the existing fence for something higher that would actually be more desirable.

Yeah.

But remember from the photos there, it's already a six-foot fence, which is what is the maximum allowed.

So I don't staff correct me if I'm wrong, but something like that.

We couldn't go higher because we would need to have a variance to go higher.

But um, maybe that's something we're wouldn't these items come up in site plan review.

Sorry?

Wouldn't these items come up in site plan?

They would, except when we're talking about the character of what is going to be coming here.

How will those actually be implemented potentially obviously ideated if we're going to have a completely different use class that is from what we currently allow in these situations?

Commissioner Sowich, can you give me the code reference that you specifically uh 1064 F7.

Yeah, it's related to um landscaping screening and fencing, and then um fences, hedges, and walls in districts adjacent to residential districts.

Now, technically I would assume this is I guess this is PD zoning.

So it would be applicable to this provision in the code.

Yeah, so I think we would sorry that was loud enough.

Um we would definitely take a look at this during site plan.

I do think yeah, a combination on landscaping um solid walls or fences.

Uh you're you're right.

I believe that six foot maximum height would apply.

Um it would take a special variance um or uh industrial zoning to allow higher than that.

Um and I think it yeah, there would need to be some consideration of how whether that's creating sort of a uh dead space in between the residential fence and the commercial fence or indoor wall.

Um but yeah, I think that's definitely something we would we'd want to coordinate on a site plan and figure out how all those things were sort of lining up.

Yeah, and I and again, um I'm I'm bringing this up because correct me if I'm wrong.

Yes, that is site plan, that is the landscaping, but those are some of the things that we have to take into consideration when we're talking about a different zoning class that then triggers this additional provision than what we would normally have where it's medium density next to uh medium density next to medium density, it's all the same, so it doesn't trigger this provision in here.

Yeah, I think so.

And I I think that's um sort of valid discussion around the uh the PD, the provision on this and this proposed PD that describes sort of what this landscape buffer would look like.

So yeah, I think I think it's valid discussion to sort of think through some of that, and then if there are specific details that uh could be added and sort of the description of what that landscape buffer looks like, um perhaps that's something that could be added before town council.

Okay.

Matt 2 I'll uh yeah, so just uh so everyone knows it's 820 right now.

Um so uh we're gonna do another round and then we'll go to deliberation.

So Commissioner Dreckman.

I am good for now, thank you.

Commissioner Bahan.

Uh Harry, tonight we're just trying to explain the uses that would be allowed on the site for the applicants proposed.

The the uses, but also the dimensional standards, so the setbacks um height, and then um yeah, this 20 foot uh landscape buffer.

That's some question I had Commissioner Burns.

Um there was a comment about vacancy rates.

Do we know roughly our retail vacancy rate in URI right now?

Um it's yeah, uh we have way more demand than we do retail space, close to zero on the vacancy.

I don't know offhand specifically, whatever it is I'm trying to say.

It's well utilized.

Yes.

Okay.

Um and then I I do hear all the comments about um pedestrians.

That is something that I want to see.

Um the traffic studies that get brought up.

Are there any when those occur?

Are there any provisions or traffic reductions for a more pedestrian focused development?

Is there a way to utilize the fact that this is a almost so pedestrian friendly that people don't even want to drive there sort of thing, and that will actually reduce traffic.

Is that built into the study?

Yeah, when um our transportation team works with applicants again at site plan or plotting stage, they um work with them to develop their base assumptions form, and so that would play into you know those inputs of expected pedestrian and bicycle traffic.

Those would be a counter.

Yeah, just make it overemphasize pedestrian traffic.

It's effectively a pedestrian focused place, and people in cars should feel that they shouldn't drive more than five miles an hour because there's children around.

And it's obvious that they're around.

So that I think that's it is really important.

I mean, it's right next to Erie Parkway, which is busy, but um it yeah, it's important, it's real.

So Vice Chair Brothers.

I guess we have to focus on the fact that this is the zoning and not the site plan.

And so um we've talked a lot about the traffic studies.

Uh are we expecting much of the traffic to go beyond this um parcel into the development?

Uh I don't see that happening, but I could be missing something.

Uh I think it's tough for me to comment on without seeing a traffic study, but I I do agree.

I think it would be uh or or that's uh yeah, I guess speculation on my point, but or on my part, but um it it doesn't seem like it would be prone to a lot of cut through traffic.

Yeah, because there's no push really seems to go through.

That's not true.

Um but yeah, I I guess it's only questions right now.

Commissioner Booth.

Um I think we got um communication from more uh community input.

And one of the questions I had for staff is that something that was asked from the community was um about some previous meetings in December and February, um, some that were canceled, whether public notice procedures were followed, all of that.

Can we address some of those questions that came out?

I don't know that any meetings were canceled, and I think all of the notices were done.

Yeah, I'm not aware of any um cancellations.

I think the December meeting was the neighborhood meeting.

Yeah, I think that was the confusion.

The December meeting was uh the neighborhood meeting, not a planning commission meeting.

Okay.

And then we did re-notice for this one.

So that includes publishing in the paper posting at the site and mailing to those within 500 feet.

Okay, thank you.

Um then I want to go back to this where we are today for zoning and then where it goes, and then the site plan.

Um potentially this is the last time we will see this come before us.

I I've heard open.

I don't know how what open means necessarily to having a site plan come back before us.

I don't know that that's really up for I don't know if that's something that's really up for discussion, but I want to understand that this could be the last time we see this in front of us.

That is correct.

So um if this were to be approved by town council um a month from now or whatever, uh and the applicant were to submit a site plan and application.

Um the plot application would be an administrative approval.

It would go to presumably would go to town council on consent agenda for our acceptance of a development agreement and uh possibly utility easements if um any of those were moving around.

Uh the site plan, we'd be left with the the choices that are given to us in the UDC with the square footage threshold um under 25,000 square feet being sort of a default to administrative review.

Um, however, the director does always have the opportunity to um uh refer, or I don't know what the correct term is, but refer a case up to um planning commission for review.

Could I ask one more emphasis question?

Umce it gets past the zoning and it starts getting into those other phases.

Is it hard to slow down the train?

Um I don't know exactly I I think I think yes, I think zoning is where um decision the planning commission certainly and town council have uh uh because those are zoning decisions are always made at um public hearing process with planning commission town council.

I do think that's where uh they can actually you as commission and town council as the council uh exercises more power at that stage, I think, whereas administrative applications uh later on um more of the burden um is on staff at that point to ensure that uh things are being done consistently with our standards and with um the feedback that we've heard uh thus far.

But the yeah, power sort of shifts between staff and uh board elected officials.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Sellish um to clarify to confirm um in terms of for staff 1064 C.

I don't know.

I want to say bingo, right?

Um bingo parlors.

That is not that is not applicable to this.

Correct.

That's for outdoor storage, I think.

Okay, just want to make sure.

Um okay, so for for staff, um is there any precedent?

Are there any other locations?

Um where we've had this type of development go into those areas.

Um I know most of these are are built as neighborhood mixed use where it's from the get-go, you have the commercial and you have the residential together.

Um are there any situations where it was residential and then commercial came later?

Um, I know Erie Highlands obviously has that currently going on, but again, that was planned from the very beginning.

Is there anything as precedent that we can look to in a situation that is similar to what we're seeing here today for this application?

Um, it's not exactly the same.

We do have adaptive reuse in old town where we do have commercial uses being introduced into residential buildings right next to existing residential.

So like the cellar west along um briggs is an example of a very recent new commercial use.

Within existing residential, it is currently zoned to allow that because of the zoning on briggs.

So that zoning decision was made a while ago to allow for that over time to happen.

So that's just off the top of my head, and certainly you're right that in a lot of areas like town center or even some of the developments that have been approved of late, we do have that mix of commercial and residential.

And and then when we talk about you know old town is uh you know the example of what we see, we have specific provisions related to how the character of that lot in the buildings on that lot have to match then um the character of the houses around it.

Uh it's something like you know, every 25 feet there must be a split, you know, it must be similar to the actual lots on the adjacent property.

I mean that isn't anything that is related to this.

We are simply zoning this as it is.

And I know I made this uh comment last time.

It's a blank slate, basically anything on this list can go here.

We have no restrictions in terms of how these actually have to be set up, how the buildings have to be set up, um, how they have to generally face we do have uh but more in line with um trying to minimize impact on the residential areas.

This is basically here's your postage stamp of area, 30 foot, 20 foot buffer around.

As long as it's within that area, fits within the setbacks, um, the various distances to the arterials, anything can be built there as long as it's on that list.

Within the bounds of our standards, yes, of course.

Yeah, and uh, I I would also specify I think um we in in terms of uses it it is a a bit of a bank blank slate that yeah, anything on that list could potentially come.

Um but I I would say staff exercise a fair amount of discretion through our um commercial design standards that are in the UDC and those um are the most comprehensive list, but they do uh contemplate sort of uh where buildings and parking are placed.

Um we have a bunch of minimum standards for landscaping and architectural materials and things like that.

So it's not fully um fair game after that.

I think staff can impose uh or or staff do uh make sure that it's being consistent with all those uh design standards as well.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Um and time is now 8:32 p.m.

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

Um since it's a little late, I want to try to keep this under 10 minutes before we get to a vote.

So I'll just open the floor, whoever wants to speak.

Um, if we go a little bit over, but again, just be aware of the time, please.

Wants to start.

Anyone want to deliberate um well I'll start and then so one of the things I do appreciate is that the work that went back in six weeks, there's some been some pretty significant changes, uh, a lot of work on the PD.

Um because it's just zoning for me, it um I would like to see it um come to what are we the pointing commission?

That's right.

Um understanding that we have that limitation, but um I I do like the developer open to the the public meeting or the the neighborhood meeting style of um process, so that's what makes sense to me.

So anyone else have any comments?

Commissioner Salish?

Um I know that you know, for first off, thank you.

Um we rarely have a development um an applicant come before us and change their application and what they're proposing as much as was changed in the situation.

Um I know that's we threw in the kitchen sink at times, and you responded with here's your faucet, here's the drain.

Um so that that really is nice to see.

I will say that this it's there's going to be other chances for the public to comment on this as things go through if it is in fact approved.

Um there's a lot to this development that in concept it might not actually work in terms of what we're seeing, some of the things that we brought up tonight.

Obviously, this is just concept.

We have this postage stamp of land, and we have this idea of bringing things.

Um I would say that the biggest thing is trying to make it as um as most neutral as possible to that location so that it doesn't impact the residents.

Um again, if this is you know approved in the end.

Um for staff, thank you for working with the applicants again.

I know we threw in the bathtub as well, so thank you for saying here's your shower.

Um, so I appreciate all this.

Um I will say that I believe I said this last time.

This is probably one of many to come in the future where we have infill commercial development because there are so many locations that are PD, and because there are so many little postages of space available for commercials.

So fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how things go, you're gonna be setting a precedent.

So but I wanted to thank you for your time and for staffs as well.

Thank you.

Also I echo what you're gonna say because I was gonna say something similar.

That you're trying to make the best of the situation to work within the constraints that the residents want to have while at the same point um or at the same time realizing that other things in the past that have tried to go in here haven't worked, and so uh the fact that it is zoning and there will be more opportunities.

Um I don't know how many times the a smaller development has been pushed back to the planning commission, but um that is still a possibility at the discretion of the director.

And so basically thank you.

And I want to also thank the residents for what you've been doing and saying.

And hopefully you feel you've been heard.

Uh no matter which way things go.

I I think you you have been heard and modifications have been made, and we'll see which way the vote goes.

Commissioner Burns.

Yeah, I just wanted to add a little bit of uh into what Commissioner Solak should mention.

This is kind of um when we talk about walk walkable neighborhoods.

This is the the next extension of that, not having to get in your car and drive all the time.

We see this uh with the Erie Village, that small little commercial thing that's going in in the front of that that was has been built yet, it's approved.

Um I saw a story today.

Um in Westerly, there's a market um grocery store, uh quick foods kind of thing that's also going in there.

Um it's I think that's that's really the next step of development here.

Um which mentioned that's infill, but this is to get us from not having to drive to Lafayette to go to the store to go get something to eat, etc.

So, you know, hopefully we're gonna try to make it work for everyone where it's not pain.

Um and then it works for the community as well.

That's just my thoughts.

Okay.

Honestly, I'm I'm told I I hear the residents' concerns.

I see the development as it's presented, and there's potential there too.

Uh I mean if we were to look back at the original PD with the daycare as presented, what other accessory uses would have been allowed at that point, and it most likely is a uses that have been listed.

So there's an advancement, I guess, there to start for this infill process to occur and gain some traction because we're gonna see more of it to everybody's point.

And that's kind of the rebuilding of the neighborhoods.

None of us want to drive.

I drive 45 minutes into Denver every day.

If I had this in my back door, this would be a huge amenity for me at least and gaining back an hour and a half for my life every day.

So there's considerations of that.

Uh I go both ways on this.

This is gonna be extremely tough to kind of justify the concerns of the residents.

And I I strongly hear the concerns there.

Um maybe there's some more discussions around the uses that are allowed.

Maybe the restriction of operating hours, um potentially more professional uh office areas could be more promoted to help minimize that after six o'clock hour, and help the immediate residents kind of gain back some of their value of what they see right now because the views back to the west are pretty phenomenal if you stand on the east side.

So there's considerations there that I would really like to see honed in.

Uh, and then get into kind of building that community because everybody's gonna get along if this goes forward, and there's got to be some give and take on both sides in order for us to build a community as this is as this kind of goes.

So I appreciate everyone's time.

Commissioner Dreckman or Commissioner Booth.

Um, if approved, I'm confident by this point that staff has heard the residents' concerns and will put a ton of weight into the traffic study and the site plan.

So I think you know that stuff like the town is certain staff is more responsible here at this point because I think the applicant's done everything they can and you know is still running a business, so kind of needs to focus on that.

I think the staff has more of the responsibility at this point.

Thanks.

Commissioner Booth.

Um, I would probably echo most um of what Commissioner Baham said.

This one also is very tough for me.

Um I happen to live in Erie Commons, so I have a lot of commercial around me, and so there are some benefits to that.

I can lock my FedEx package down to tape and twine.

I can go to Christo's Coffee and walk there, or to Ziggy's, or to my credit union.

Um there are some definite benefits to having some of that around you and that walkability.

Um but there were some legitimate concerns.

The traffic um, and I know we're not at that stage.

That one does have a lot of concern.

Um because the in and out of that location is not good.

I also think that um is it Meller?

Is that the street?

I I feel like that that is a thoroughfare, also um, to try to get down to Austin or I think it's Austin.

Um so there's a lot of future things to consider too.

And I think for the developer, um it would behoove you to be very mindful of what type of um establishments go in there.

Um I think it could be a great benefit to the community if it's careful.

So I am also very torn.

Okay, thank you.

Let's move.

Um well would someone like to make a motion, and I have a sheet if you want to read it, Commissioner Burns.

Um we do not uh have any conditions on that.

That's what I was gonna ask.

There's no additional conditions besides because we've addressed those from the original recommendations.

So uh motion to approve resolution number P2603, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval of the Canyon Creek plan development amendment number 11 with conditions.

I don't know if that's that's important.

Second is that a second from Commissioner Salish?

Okay, we have a motion and a second.

Does anybody want to request a roll call vote?

All right.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our last item is 2026 103, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that our town council reappoint commissioners Booth and Burns.

Time is now 8 44 p.m.

I'll just start with some of the comments and then we'll open the board.

So let's target finishing this one by nine.

We'll see how we do.

So part of this as we discussed is the recommendation as I've been digging through some pieces.

I I've gotten some clarifying pieces from let me just find my email.

Yeah, from how the the seats are working.

So the way the appointments were set up in 2022 is actually the um seats are vacant on May 17th.

So there's the commentary about how that works, but just for reference, I think it's clear to me now that the town council will I think they're planning on continuing the interviews, but then the new commissioners wouldn't be seated until uh May 17th or May 18th.

So I just wanted to point that out that that's kind of how this will work.

We're not going to see unless someone resigns a new commission until mid-May, which might actually be after our meeting, so it might be June.

I'll just clarify unless the ordinance is changed.

Unless the town council passes an ordinance, but typically they would do a resolution for this.

So they would have to do an ordinance to reduce terms, would be my guess.

So that that's for them to work out.

Right.

So I just wanted to I think I've made my point.

Um anybody who wants to start on other thoughts.

I mean, obviously I brought this up, but I think I'm in favor of passing it just because I like working with you.

Quick question for staff just to go over why it didn't get passed off to town council.

There's an explanation for that.

So yeah, um, and I'll also let can all um respond as well.

But with the conversation that we had during the planning commission meeting and through guidance with um our legal council, we determined there wasn't really a um direct path to go to town council with respect to getting permission.

Um typically with our boards and commissions, if there is some type of communication that wants to be made, it's through resolution or through a letter.

Um, our process is um not structured to you know create specific agenda items for council to approve a communication.

So we did talk pretty extensively internally and with our legal council over what is what would you know what would that even look like?

Um and we did also convey to council and actually um Chair Hempel also sent a note to council that there was an intention from planning commission to um have a resolution of this nature.

So we felt that the communication had been had in multiple ways because we also provided an update um through town management to um to council.

So given that we didn't have the structure for it, but we have a good structure for communication between boards and council.

We went with what we have.

Um yeah, I don't know if you want to add anything.

That's not not nothing to add.

Thank you very much for that.

At least that way it's on the record as to what happened.

So okay, so let me let me just mess it.

So uh for staff, you're saying we don't have a clear-cut way in which communications are supposed to occur to council, correct?

No, what I mentioned is we don't have a clear-cut way of having approval of a communication from a board to council.

So or having council approve a communication.

So our standard, we do have a way for communication to happen, and that is typically a resolution that is made within a board, and that's passed on to council as an item on their agenda.

That is our mode of communication between the boards or boards can come and give updates to council that are agendized.

In terms of having a um having council approve a specific communication to even happen that's not our typical mode.

We just have kind of a one-way communication from board to council.

Okay so there have been requests from planning commissions in the past that have been requested of council and those have gone to council and they have weighed in it's not a vote that they're taking it's you know informal straw poll let's call it right and the request was brought to them we have the advisory board guide uh the member hand member guidebook it says staff obviously can't request be a direct communique to the council um it's supposed to go through your council liaison we don't have a council liaison obviously um in situations where it says you know um how it notes you know um it would go to the town manager and town and town council liaison to evaluate the pro appropriateness of the requests to provide directions of whether staff should proceed right because this is basically we're trying to add this to our work plan essentially um when it's not currently listed we don't have a council liaison so in the future how would we get requests to the council because guarantee this is not going to be the last time but this is the first time that I'm hearing a direct request from the planning commission did not make it up to council and made it up to staff and town administration and then got kicked back down with a response when there was a direct request.

I will say that there the communication did occur to get to council the um there wasn't a two-way communication back though so council did not they didn't have a straw poll or a communication about that request as a body we did not agendize that conversation so that is not something that we typically would do um you know if it's something that you know staff or that planning commission wants council to consider that we could you know again have a resolution and have that brought to council to weigh in on giving direction we also have other opportunities like joint study sessions where there can be dialogue and again there's also opportunities you know in our work plan updates for that to happen um I understand the question about you know we don't have a council liaison who would um typically and I haven't seen this happen all that much with um this current council or even really with past councils in terms of bringing back dialogue um from a board and then having them weigh in and provide direction back through that council liaison back over to the board um it's uh that hasn't in my experience here been overly formal formalized with council um but that's something that we can talk to our um administrative services and and town clerk and just kind of see how that communication might want to change we are currently looking at our boards and commissions and how our staff you know the roles of our staff liaisons the roles of council liaisons literally right now we are trying to refine that because sometimes it's different with different boards and this certainly has its you know the planning commission um has its constraints and so does our um you know when we have quasi judicial um considerations and other boards like um the historic board you know sometimes that communication can be um also conflicted if you know we have uh um if we we're not able to share certain information between the council and that commission or board so um long story short that's we I'd want to discuss it more um with legal and with our town clerk and see how you know if there's if there's opportunity to improve communication and our standards for how we do that certainly happy to um to look into it and get back to you know we can get back to you as a board but we're also going to be communicating with all of our boards and commissions on our updates to how communication is going to happen and what our roles are and and just uh clarify only let

So um long story short, that's I'd want to discuss it more um with legal and with our town clerk and see how you know if there's if there's opportunity to improve communication and our standards for how we do that, certainly happy to um to look into it and get back to you know we can get back to you as a board, but we're also gonna be communicating with all of our boards and commissions on our updates to how communication is gonna happen and what our roles are.

Yeah, and and just uh clarify only legislative, nothing QJ, because quasi-judicial is obviously so it would only be legislative, but um, you know, segueing into this.

We're we're gonna have a conversation in a moment about roles and responsibilities.

And when we were talking about this item about bringing it forward, I said I don't know how I would feel if I was on the other side receiving this and it's never been done.

It has not been done if if ever they feel like we're stepping on toes, would they feel like we are getting into an area where we don't have any real responsibility?

I know other boards and commissions do the um they have historically done the uh review of the applications, the resumes, and then they provide their um recommendation over, and typically those get approved.

But in the you in the municipal code, there's only one single border commission that is by code supposed to be doing that.

So we get into a situation where we're getting into these areas, and I've been in the situation of being on a planning commission where we have tried to do something that wasn't within our role or responsibility, and I do love having our uh legal counsel here saying doesn't say you can't, you know.

Um we're not questioning that.

The question is, does this potentially impact those discussions we're about to have?

Will we um you know have will it come as a surprise?

Will they be upset about it?

Because again, this has not happened in the past.

To clarify, your um planning commission hasn't made this recommendation in the past, but you you did mention, I mean, we do have other boards who make recommendations on potential members.

Because of the role of the planning commission, it's always been it is at the um you know discretion of the former board of trustees now council, and this has never been done.

Uh Chair Hemphill did share um the intention of planning commission.

Can yeah, can I just say minds of me super quick?

I think I'm gonna go to the case.

Let me can I call the question with Vice Chair Brodus and then we'll go to you, Commissioner Dreckman.

I believe the phrase is called a question.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Okay.

Oh, did you want to call the question?

But I'm just yeah, wondering how long this right, where we're where this is headed, I guess.

Okay.

That's my only opinion is that like I think maybe there's some more passion about this.

I think it's fine.

I don't think they're gonna be offended.

That seems excessive to me that they would be offended over that.

I don't really understand why that would be offensive to anyone, they can just ignore it if they don't want to see it.

So my personal opinion is that I'd be fine approving it.

Um I'm just standing because it hurts my spine to say this long.

That's I'm not being rude or anything, but I personally would I have no issue recommending Commissioner Booth and Commissioner Burns, and I would be fine moving forward with that.

So one item I don't need to become back to is my point.

Thank you.

Um in the resolution, it states the terms beginning March 3rd, 2026, which as I said earlier isn't really what's happening.

Um if we do have a motion, I'd recommend um striking the words beginning March 3rd, 2026.

Is this something that we vote on?

We're voting on this resume.

So yes.

And I get to vote on myself, being I mean, I don't have to accuse myself on this.

I was gonna recuse, yeah.

Uh I would say Commissioner Booth and Commissioner Byrne should recuse.

You don't have to, just so you know.

You don't have to be obligated to recuse.

But yes, that your intuition, I would recommend that too.

So clarification.

Um saying that the new commissioners won't start until May.

Correct.

Correct.

Yeah.

May 17th or the application says that they're new the new commissioners are seating on March 18th.

Uh yeah, I I think you guys can answer that.

Yeah.

Um the basically the way the the ordinance is written in municipal code, it has appointments have to happen um April of odd numbered years now.

Um this is filling three spots that were specifically appointed with an end date of May 17th, 2026.

Okay.

So that's the the weirdness in this, and um the town clerk's office runs all of our recruitment for all of our advisory boards, and we'll um and they're aware that that that does need to get updated.

Okay, and it's also an even numbered year.

You're correct.

Yeah, yes.

So anybody want to make a motion?

Real quickly, just out of curious.

How will this get to council?

This is something that we're creating a resolution of yes.

How will it end up on their agenda?

Will it be part of the application material for the two individuals?

Should it pass?

It will we will forward the signed resolution to the town clerk's office.

It will be included in the packet of materials on March 3rd.

Okay, and we have no idea at this point who is who has or is applying, or just saying the two individuals that we have up there.

Correct.

Yeah.

Okay.

I ask a question.

Okay.

But this doesn't bypass any of the interview process.

Unfortunately, I think that's a good question.

So this is just you saying this is the appointing commission as a body recommending if we voted yes.

That's what it is.

Then we like you.

So I move to approve with conditions, and the condition is that we remove the last phrase.

Um do I need to read the whole phrase?

Yeah, remove the phrase beginning March 3rd, 2026.

Resolution number P 2604.

A resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that the town council reappoint Sherry Booth and Tim Burns to the planning commission.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

Let's do a roll call vote.

Um Secretary, please call the vote.

Commissioner Booth.

Recuse.

Recused.

Sorry, recuse.

Okay.

Commissioner Sawwish.

Yes.

Commissioner Dreckman.

Yes.

Commissioner Burns.

Refused.

Commissioner Bahem.

Yes.

Vice Chair Brutus.

Yes.

Chair Hempel.

Yes.

We have five votes in favor and two recusals.

Motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

I will be quick about this one.

Uh time is now 9 02 p.m.

Sorry about that.

And we've concluded general business staff reports.

Um we we don't have anything, any public hearings for March 4th.

So I if there's nothing else that the commission would like to put on the agenda, would request that we issue a cancellation.

I don't have anything right now.

Um do that in commissioner reports.

Yeah, okay.

Yeah, let's cancel the uh March 4th.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um time is now 9 03 p.m.

and we'll finish with commissioner reports and discussion.

We'll go around the table.

Um who wants to start commissioner Salish?

Um during the council meetings, um there's been obviously a uh issue that is above our pay grade um occurring up there.

But there was a comment that was made by the mayor.

Um, the question of do we have enough water for all of our developments?

Um I believe that that is a topic that is squarely sitting with the comprehensive plan because the comprehensive plan must include a water component.

Is that something that we want to uh touch with the 30-foot poll where we're I mean, I feel like we should where we have a discussion about do we have enough water?

Um, obviously, I know they're probably still having conversations if this is an important one, but at what point do we start to have these conversations?

Since we're just as someone who has done as someone who's done this for other municipalities, the typical thing.

This is just a uh a commissioner comment, not a question and answer thing.

So I think this is gonna be that that's that's the question for staff.

At what point do we start touching that topic and start looking into that?

Okay.

So um feel free to send an email.

Yeah, uh, I'll send you an email about it.

Um okay, and then um obviously over the weekend we had three tragedies that happen.

So um obviously my condolences and sympathies go out to all those involved that were affected by it.

And I just want to say hug your loved ones, tell them that you love them because life is short.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Anyone else?

I have a few on my list.

Okay.

First one is security training.

I still haven't done it yet, and it is due March 4th, I believe.

Good thing we canceled that meeting.

So you can't do that.

Yeah, so get that done, otherwise you're gonna get a message from IT and hopefully not get locked out of your email.

Exactly.

Um next item is I'd just like to remind this commission to please keep me on copy with all emails of staff.

Um welcome to ask staff questions, but please don't direct staff or process items.

We are commissioned with majority approval for our opinion.

As such, directing staff is not appropriate, please work with me before making a request.

Uh and then finally, I'd like to thank Malcolm Malcolm Fleming for a service to Erie as town manager.

I had the opportunity and privilege to work closely with Malcolm uh as a home rule charter commissioner.

Um, and I greatly appreciate his insight and work.

So uh Malcolm, I wish you the best for your future.

So that concludes all the items on our agenda.

Commissioner Booth, take a motion.

Uh motion to adjust.

All right.

Time is now 9 06 p.m.

and we are adjourned.