To the April 1st, 2026 regular meeting of the Town of Erie Planning Commission.

The time is now six thirty, and I'm calling the meeting to order.

Would you please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance?

The United States of America.

Thank you.

Would the Secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth.

Here.

Commissioner Burns.

Here.

Commissioner Drakman.

Here.

Commissioner Sawish.

Live from Old Town.

Commissioner Baham.

Here.

Vice Chair Brodus.

Here.

Chair Hempill is absent and excused.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

Okay, we have an agenda before us this evening.

Does staff have any changes to the agenda?

No changes.

Thank you.

Would like to make a motion tonight's agenda?

Motion to approve.

Second.

Okay.

You got those?

I did.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed?

Okay.

The agenda carries.

This brings us to the approval of the March 18th, 2026 minutes for the Planning Commission.

Any changes or requests to approve?

Motion to approve.

Okay.

Second.

Okay.

Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

All right.

That carries.

Okay.

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

This part is only for public comments for things that are not already scheduled on the agenda.

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

Um let me see.

And again, this is for things not on the agenda.

The three items that I have are four items on the agenda.

Okay, thank you.

Which is greatly appreciated.

So our first item is 2026 170.

Public hearing, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval.

I'm opening it.

And so this is a fairly large area, 300 acres.

Um but sort of clustered development.

So it's uh total of six hundred and thirty-two residential lots and forty-nine tracks for um drainage, utilities, open space, all those sorts of things.

Uh gross density comes out to just over two dwelling units per acre.

And uh it is zoned currently under the Spring Hill PD.

And of course, where we sit in the process is uh sort of in between that zoning stage and uh if if approved, we would move into uh final plot application and a site plan for the town home portions of this property.

I'll walk through a bit of background, then get in the some more details of the proposal and then finally get into the approval criteria and decision.

And so it's on the south side of highway 52, uh, in between uh county line road, which is labeled as Weld County Road 1 on this map here, uh, and County Road 3 on the east side there.

And you can see on this map uh the Morgan Hill neighborhood existing Morgan Hill neighborhood is just to the south.

The comprehensive plan designates this property as uh residential low density uh with a dwelling unit or with a density range between two and eight dwelling units per acre.

Uh and staff note that the application is consistent with that designation and also uh consistent with a couple or a few uh specific goals in the comp plan, including encouraging a variety of housing types, um connecting the community through a network of uh parks, greenways, trails, uh and of course, uh yeah, increasing housing options.

Zoning wise, as I mentioned, the zoning here is uh specific the Spring Hill PD.

Uh however, that zoning is fairly comparable to a low density residential type zoning.

Uh let's go over some of the key facts here.

So, as I mentioned, uh this is uh 300 acres total, uh 632 lots.

That breaks down into 414 single family detached, uh 148 duplex and 70 town home lots.

Uh the minimum lot sizes from the Spring Hill PD are uh just shy of 5,000 for 5,000 square feet for single family dwellings, just shy of 2,000 for duplex, and just shy of 1,500 for town homes, and these lots are consistent with those lot standards from the PD.

As I mentioned, the uh gross density here is just over two dwelling units per acre.

Um there are a lot of tracks here, so those tracks are uh for a variety of purposes, including utilities, some of them are for um open space, uh alleyways, uh landscaping, uh drainage, those types of things.

Uh in total, there's about 44 acres of new public right-of-way that will be dedicated.

Uh this this proposal does include uh a school site, a feature dedication of school site to SV VSD, and that is just shy of 11 acres.

Um, in total, 35 acres of public open space would be dedicated.

Uh, and then there's also a significant amount of uh open space that is anticipated to remain in uh private ownership by the metro district out here, uh, and that's uh 162 acres.

Uh or that's the total uh total open space, including private and public, sorry.

Uh in terms of access and roadways, so excuse me.

There, of course, will be this new internal network of public streets uh dedicated uh as public right-of-way.

Uh key, let me actually flip to the next slide.

Uh key connections here.

Uh, you see there will be one connection to highway 52 to the north, and the traffic study suggests that uh this will require some improvement.

Um initially the thought was a traffic signal.

I believe conversations with CDOT are ongoing.

It could be a roundabout instead.

Um I think the applicant can talk about that a little more.

The circle here is uh nearby regional intersection or sort of off-site intersection, I guess.

Highway 52 and Weld County Road 3, which is currently stop sign controlled.

Uh, that is planned to be uh in uh alignment with CDOT plans is planned to be a future roundabout.

And so developer contributions to that improvement would be um would be worked out and negotiated through the development agreement at the final plat stage.

And then there are two planned connections to Weld County Road 3 on the east side.

Uh, those are planned to be stop sign controlled and full movement, and then there is one plan connection to the south uh down into Morgan Hill.

Let me just make sure I didn't miss anything on this previous slide.

Okay.

In terms of parks, trails, and open space.

Uh the applicant is exceeding the minimum required uh dedication for uh pocket parks.

Um the neighborhood park, uh, as you all probably are aware, there's the already the Morgan Hill neighborhood park to the south here.

So in this case, our uh parks and open space team determined that uh a new dedication of another neighborhood park was not uh not desirable or needed in this case, and instead uh fee and lo uh would be the best way to proceed.

So that would be a fee and loo collected at uh final plat.

Uh in terms of community parks, uh, that's always collected uh via impact fees.

And then open space, as I mentioned, the public dedication will be uh uh just over 35 acres of public open space dedicated.

And then as I mentioned, there is uh a significant amount of private open space that would be uh preserved out here as well.

This map is probably a little hard to see on your on your screens.

Um the pink line here is extension of spine trail.

Uh and so that spine trail sort of follows the perimeter and then um uh I guess perimeter, and and also so there are a number of uh drainage irrigation ditches out here that will remain, and so this uh ditch uh also will be sort of parallel or the trail will be parallel to the ditch in a lot of these cases.

Um so that's sort of part of the curvature you see there.

Uh the dark blue, if you can see it, uh that refers to a concrete trail, and then there will be um more minor trails that connect within and throughout the development to the sort of main community center, also through sidewalks uh in the future school site as well.

And here uh uh in the lighter green shade, uh that color indicates uh public dedicated open space.

The gray shading is the what's private open space, uh darker green is uh the pocket parks.

There are uh oil and gas facilities out here, all of them have been plugged and abandoned.

Um this application has been in the works for quite a while.

So when it came in, uh it was originally 2021, and so uh legally they're obligated to abide by the oil and gas standards that were in place at the time they first filed their application.

Uh however, the again this map is probably hard to see at the scale on the slide here, but the yellow boxes that are shaded here reflects actually our current standard that would be a 50 by 100 box.

So that's just meant to show that the setback as applicable from 2021 would be a 25 foot setback from plugged in and bananas facilities.

Uh however, in most of these situations, uh a 50 by 100 setback would also work because a lot of these facilities are sort of at the perimeter of the developed area or an open space or in some cases uh uh roadways.

And there is um there is some ongoing mitigation work in the northeast corner of the property.

Uh, and I believe that's related to all the applicants can talk about that some as well.

But they've been working with the state um state agency COG CC on cleanup um because there was some soil contamination identified.

And so that would need to be completed um before approval of the final plat.

But they did the the arrangement of lots up in that northeast corner is planned in a way to allow uh essentially plenty of room for that mitigation work to happen.

In terms of impacts on the schools, uh one important thing to note is that this uh building capacity that's listed, uh the bottom left most number in this table, uh, does not reflect the capacity added capacity that will come from the uh new high school that's currently under construction in Frederick.

So that will benefit this.

This uh project here is not that far from uh that new high school.

Uh so that will help take some of the um or that will help sort of alleviate some of the overcrowding that we uh we've seen at URI High School.

Um and then as I mentioned, this blue site here is gonna be uh a dedicated school site for SVBST.

I believe it's an elementary school, um, or that's the plan for it, but they don't have imminent um we don't have any concept plans for that site at the moment um beyond sort of like very initial thinking because uh I think SVVSD is not in a in a rush to build that school at the moment.

Now I'll get into the approval criteria a bit.

So as I mentioned, staff do find that this preliminary plot is consistent with the comp plan.

As I mentioned, it matches up with the low density residential designation and hits uh some of our other more specific goals.

Uh it is also consistent with the uh Spring Hill PD zoning document.

Uh staff do find also that this uh development um keeps a lot of in particular wetlands.

Um of course those are those would be harder to develop anyways, but uh those are set aside and uh will not be developed, so I think there are uh staff find that that helps mitigate some of the impacts to the environment.

Um these criteria there there will be at the final plat stage through the construction documents.

We review things like um best management practices for water quality erosion, uh, and those come into play and enforcement and the construction.

So we do anticipate that that uh those will be a component of the construction documents when we get to that stage.

Um pedestrian and vehicle access, uh staff do find that there is uh a pretty extensive trail network proposed through this uh and thought has been given to how the pedestrians and uh bikes would connect sort of throughout the neighborhood and to key facilities such as the um community center and the uh and the school site.

And uh all oil and gas facilities have been plugged, and as I mentioned, there is this additional cleanup work happening at that one specific location, but that will be completed uh before approval of the final plat.

Uh staff find that there are adequate services and facilities currently uh or or that will be improved through this project.

So of course, as I mentioned, this this project went through pretty extensive review of a CDOT.

Uh also the school districts and some of our other partner agencies.

Um phasing is not completed at this time, but uh that may come as a part of the final plat and development agreement.

And because this project spanned a number of years, uh the applicant went back a few times um or or took a few actions in in specific uh or in particular with the neighborhood meetings.

So there were a couple neighborhood meetings, both virtual and in person.

Of course, back in 2021, we were still sort of a post-COVID time.

Uh, but the applicant did voluntarily hold another neighborhood meeting um earlier this month or last month in March.

Um has done some some other more informal interactions with property nearby property owners and also did an on-site tour.

Uh public notice requirements were met for this hearing this evening.

And with that in summary, staff do find that this application is consistent with the approval criteria and recommend that the planning commission make a recommendation of approval with our standard condition that they make all necessary technical corrections prior to the town council hearing.

And that concludes my presentation and the applicant also has a presentation for you this evening.

Oh, so I can run this.

Yeah.

If you want to all right, uh good evening.

Uh Chairman, commissioners, members of the public, thank you for your time tonight.

Uh my name is John Prestwich with PCS Group, 200 Calamas Street, Denver, Colorado.

Uh, we're a land planning landscape architectural firm, and I'm representing the Spring Hill project.

Um, we're excited to present the Spring Hill Preliminary Plat for your review.

It has been a very long process, and I would like to thank Harry and members of town staff for getting us to this point.

Um I always, you know, before we dive into the details, I want to just briefly acknowledge the extensive collaboration that has gone into this project.

As you can see, our team comprises a diverse group of highly experienced consultants, all dedicated to creating a thoughtful and responsible community for the town of Erie.

Um we always want to recognize that it takes a significant team for a new community for the town of Erie.

So the Spring Hill project has a long history.

Um it started in 2014 when the property was annexed and zoned as low density residential.

And so what we're presenting tonight isn't a new idea.

It's a vision that's been carefully crafted uh and refined over many years with the town of Erie staff.

Um we've moved through several important milestones from the initial sketch and preliminary plat and annexation submittals in 2014.

Uh we had an updated Spring Hill sketch plan in 2019, where we began uh specifically addressing project comments and engaging with OSTAB for early feedback, and then a significant step forward in February of 2022 with the approval and recording of the Spring Hill PD zoning.

For over five years, our team has worked in significant collaboration with the town of Erie to refine and modify this preliminary plat application.

We've tackled a lot of complex issues, including the plugging and abandoning of all on-site oil and gas wells, revising the site design to meet new oil and gas standards, developing solutions for regional drainage, working with adjacent neighbors and incorporating an off-site roundabout design at the intersection of Highway 52 and County Road 3.

We believe that this extensive history underscores our commitment to a high quality, compliant, and integrated community.

So Spring Hill is strategically located within the town of Erie and represents an important piece of the community's planned growth.

As shown on the Town of Erie's development project map, Spring Hill is recognized as a future community.

Again, it was annexed in 2014 with an anticipated build out of 632 homes, and this proposal fulfills that vision.

The site itself, as Harry mentioned, is well located and well defined with Highway 52 forming the northern edge, County Road 3 to the eastern boundary.

It offers a adjacent to Morgan Hill and Westview with Broomfield County lands also to the west, complementing the existing residential fabric.

This location will make Spring Hill a responsible next step in Erie's planned growth, bringing homes, connectivity, regional improvements, parks, and the extension of the town's spine trail system to the community.

So Spring Hill is identified in the comprehensive plan as residential low with the density range of two to eight dwelling units per acre, and our proposal aligns with this.

The proposal is for approximately two units per acre.

The PD zoning, as you saw was approved in 2022, and this preliminary plat is designed to be fully compliant with those established zoning regulations.

So I wanted to bring you back a little bit.

This slide shows an overview of the sketch plan concept from 2019, showing the general layout and integration of residential areas with open space.

So over the years and through the various refinements of the preliminary plat, the on-site design has largely remained consistent.

One thing that I want to point out that is a significant improvement from the sketch plan to the proposed preliminary plat is the removal of the previously planned oil and gas operation area that is depicted in this previous sketch plan.

So to be clear, with the preliminary plat proposal, that area has been removed.

There will be no more oil and gas operations on this property with this preliminary plat.

So this is just a more graphic version of the PD zoning, organizing the different residential areas as well as the dedicated open space and off-site commercial area of Spring Hill.

So these next few slides just touch on some key analysis of the property that have informed our design decisions.

This slide depicts the existing topography for the property with the proposed design underlaying it.

In general, the property is sort of a gently rolling, it has a soft ridge.

I should point out north is now to the right for all of these slides because it just gets very small if it if north is to the top.

And so the property has a sort of a soft ridge that runs north-south approximately at the midpoint of the property, and then the topography falls kind of both to the east and west from that ridge.

There are three existing irrigation ditches that bisect the property, starting from the south, the Coal Creek Cottonwood Extension, then the Lower Boulder Ditch, and then finally the Boulder Welge drainage ditch.

One thing to note is that the uh Col Creek Cottonwood Ditch also runs through the adjacent Morgan Hill community.

It's being piped through a portion of that community as well as it will be in this community.

So approximately at the midpoint of the property on the south side, there are really fantastic mountain views.

We've actually located a park in that location because of the views and the prominent location.

As Harry mentioned, and I think everyone is aware, there were a significant number of oil and gas wells on the property.

This slide shows the locations of the wells.

Again, all the wells on the property have been blugged, plugged and abandoned.

We do understand after talking with our adjacent neighbors that not all of the reclamation has been completed, and we will continue to work with the operators to make sure that work is fully completed.

There's an existing wetland on the property that has been identified and preserved within our design and integrating this natural feature into the community's open space network.

At the request of the town, this area will be dedicated to the town.

And then finally, this map highlights a crucial element of our community concept, the spine trail extensions and connections.

So together with the town, we've envisioned a comprehensive trail system that takes advantage of the natural corridors and provides extensive connectivity throughout the development and to the broader Erie community.

The next slides kind of depict our sort of community concept.

So, as I mentioned, this has been a really long process, and I want to briefly highlight the iterative process of the submittals, which I think you know really demonstrates our responsiveness and dedication to getting this project right.

From the initial submittal in March of 2020 through multiple rounds, we've addressed every comment and worked closely with town staff and other agencies.

As an example, the first submittal alone led to over a year of addressing comments related primarily to regional traffic, off-site traffic, and regional drainage considerations.

Each subsequent submittal incorporated further refinements and solutions.

But again, interestingly, the on-site design has not changed significantly throughout the design process.

The ownership team has been working on getting all the oil and gas removed from the property, responding to off-site drainage requirements, finding and gaining approvals for an off-site drainage channel that benefits the larger area, and working with CDOT.

In the sixth submittal in August of 24, we addressed some really minor comments, and then we prepared an alternative site design that moved roads and adjusted lots modestly.

We worked with David Franks from the town's oil and gas team to bring this proposal to align with current town code, as well as incorporating design elements like the roundabout at Highway 52 and County Road 3 based on discussions with the town's engineering department.

The seventh submittal in July of 25 triggered new transportation comments, which we addressed without the need for another formal submittal.

So I want to acknowledge that and thank staff for their flexibility and ongoing coordination.

In summary, while this has been a very long process, the primary delays were related to off-site design and agreements needed to solve regional issues, not a lack of effort or responsiveness.

So we know that oil and gas is a critical topic.

We've worked with the oil and gas operators to ensure that all existing wells have been fully plugged and abandoned, eliminating risk and liability for future residents in the town.

In addition, we commit to no future wells on the property.

The preliminary plat will protect the property with that commitment.

We are fully compliant with the oil and gas setbacks established in the annexation agreement, and in fact, we've gone above and beyond voluntarily updating the preliminary plat after the sixth submittal to enhance protections and responsiveness, recognizing the community concerns.

The revisions make the proposal compliant with current town standards.

So regional drainage has been another significant area of focus.

On-site detention ponds will reduce 100-year peak flows by approximately 40%, significantly lowering peak runoff leaving the property.

A proposed double eight foot by six foot culvert at State Highway 52 will replace the current undersized infrastructure and is designed for the hundred-year storm, reducing the likelihood of roadway overtopping.

With this design, the historically widespread shallow flooding will now be directed into a defined engineered channel with a clear path to Boulder Creek.

This map shows the regional drainage solution.

The blue dashed line depicts the proposed drainage path coming from the east side of County Road 3 through the property into the wetland and then into a defined channel and then through that new eight-foot wide by six-foot tall culvert under Highway 52, and ultimately getting to Boulder Creek.

So this slide provides a more detailed illustrative plan of the preliminary plat, showing the design principles that we've applied.

We're proposing a diverse housing mix and lot sizes to meet market demand and attract a broad range of buyers.

This is a thoughtful low density design at approximately 2.1 dwelling units per acre, which preserves neighborhood character while supporting a viable community.

A key highlight is our commitment to open space.

Over half the site, 162 acres is conserved as parks and open space.

This delivers long-term environmental value, recreation, and community identity.

Another element of this design is that 361 homes or 57% of the homes in the community directly front or back onto parks or open space, providing premium yards, views, and stronger property values for residents.

So this slide highlights the parks and open space areas throughout the property.

Again, we're providing 35 acres of dedicated open space, which is quite a bit above the 28-acre requirement.

We worked collaboratively with the town's park and open space team to identify the area they desired, preserving the natural character of the existing wetland on the property.

The plan includes significant neighborhood amenities with four acres of pocket parks, significantly more than the 0.8 acres required, creating a variety of park spaces, accessible gathering places woven into each one of the neighborhoods.

Overall, Spring Hill offers a significant recreational resource with 123 acres of parks and non-dedicated open space, providing flexible opportunities for passive and active uses.

This significant preservation of 162 acres or 54% of the property is about delivering a healthy, resilient, and highly marketable community that puts a premium on quality of life with significant park and trail opportunities.

So our commitment to an active connected community can be seen in the trail system.

We are proposing nearly five and a half miles of total trails across the site.

This includes a significant amount of town spile trail spine trail, about 1.9 miles.

In addition, and in collaboration with our neighbors to the west, we are providing a bridge and trail connection so that our neighbors to the west have access to the overall trail network.

We also have connections within the community with 3.6 miles of local trails weaving through the neighborhoods to promote walking, biking, and safer routes to parks and school sites.

We've collaborated closely with the town's transportation team to deliver a safe connected road infrastructure.

This includes dedicated bike lanes that link neighborhoods, parks, and trails.

This design enhances multimodal access, supporting healthier, more sustainable mobility, and represents a significant investment that boosts community appeal and supports the town's long-term goals.

Then finally, on traffic, another key collaborative solution that has been identified is the roundabout at Highway 52 and County Road 3.

Instead of a traffic signal, and at the request of CDOT, our team coordinated with CDOT as well as neighboring developers to accommodate this request.

So roundabouts are planning to improve safety and traffic flow by reducing conflict points, calming speeds, and minimizing long-term accident risk.

They're cost effective and durable with lower long-term operations and maintenance compared to a signalized intersection.

We build the community as a computer model to review the design.

And as part of that, we've put together an animation to kind of show you highlight certain areas of the community.

So I'll just kind of let this play.

It's about a minute and a half or so.

So this is the entry road coming up towards our park site.

We've started to change out a lot of the grass to native seed, trying to get into the Zeric mode, even though we're just at preliminary plat.

You can see a lot of the detached meandering walks, a little bit different look, open rail fencing along the backs.

Even though we don't have a neighborhood park, the combined pocket park and uh pool site area is getting close to five acres in and of itself.

Kind of fly through two of these other pocket parks and then follow the trail alignment a little bit, more done.

So this is part of the spine trail heading to the south at this point.

So to summarize, you know, we think Spring Hill is a thoughtfully planned community that fully meets the requirements of the town of Erie.

The overall project is a little over 300 acres, proposing a maximum of 632 homes, approximately two units per acre.

The community concept again proposes approximately 162 acres of open space, about 54% of the property.

Uh we depict about five and a half miles of trails, including 1.9 miles of spine trail.

Uh the proposal is uh meets the requirements of the comprehensive plan uh as well as zoning.

Um the preliminary plat has undergone a rigorous review with staff and outside referral agencies.

All issues have been resolved, and staff has recommended approval based on their analysis of the approval criteria.

Um with that, we're we're happy to answer questions.

Thank you very much for the presentations.

It's now 705 p.m.

And we'll move to public testimony.

Is there anyone in the waiting room signed up for the audience?

Um I do have one person in the audience for this agenda item.

Um Chris Needs.

Yeah, if you'll come up to the podium, please.

And so you have yeah.

Um so then because you're having public comments, limited to three minutes per person.

When you're called upon, you'll be required to state your name and place of residence for the record.

If you're appearing on behalf of person organization, please provide the name and place of residence of that person organization.

And it's not an interactive question answer forum, but rather a time for you to state your comments on a particular item or issue.

You'll be given an audible warning.

Only 20 seconds, and also the colors on that little box will show up.

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

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

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

So let's start with in person.

Okay.

Um my name is Chris Neems.

I live at uh 626 State Highway 52.

Um here to speak to the obvious traffic situation that we have on Highway 52.

Um there are three planned communities going in on 52 over the next probably five years.

Uh Spring Hills, about 600 houses.

Uh Summerfield is four or five hundred houses.

I'm not sure how that's going to grow bigger.

And then the shores of Plum Creek over in Frederick across from uh County Road 3 is 1,100 plus commercial.

It's huge.

Um 52 is already kind of a nightmare uh if you have to use that at all.

Um eastbound traffic in the evening, westbound, obviously going into Boulder in the morning.

Um is pretty bad.

Stop and go.

Um I'm a little concerned with the fact of we want to put uh traffic circles uh at three, and possibly at the other at at our other exit out of the development, and also I believe uh Shorts are Plum Creek is talking about a traffic circle at a new um exit at three and a half.

Um so all those traffic circles are gonna reduce the traffic on 52 from 55 miles an hour to God knows what, 35.

Um we all know from our internet.

The slower you have the internet, the fewer people you can support.

So we're gonna increase uh the number of people using 52, yet we're gonna reduce the traffic flow.

So I can I can foresee if we don't do anything about this, that traffic will at least go westbound in the morning, will be stalled on I-25 people getting off of I-25, trying to get on 52.

So I think development looks wonderful.

Um I'm concerned, like I say, about the traffic.

So what I'm asking for the commission to think about is number one, a long term, is get together if you don't already with Erie and Frederick, Weld County, and CDOT to talk about the long-term plan for 52.

My understanding right now, CDOT has no plan on the books to widen 52, which is totally crazy.

Um is review traffic circles.

Uh I think that's gonna be a mess.

Um, number three, and I think this is doable, um, is you have to improve the intersection at three, and also this other exit you're gonna make.

I would ask that those improvements follow through and go across my property so that I get an acceleration lane and possibly a left-hand turn lane into my property.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Are there any other it looks like that's it for in-person?

I do have several people online.

So if I do have anybody online that would wish to speak on this agenda item, please raise your hand.

Okay, I do have one more that I'm gonna bring in.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Julie D Martino.

I am a local real estate agent here in Erie.

Um I live in Morgan Hill as well.

My questions are for thought.

If there's no school development being planned by SVB SD, where are these kids going to be going to school?

And then is there for sure going to be a pool as an as an amenity?

And the traffic, I agree, is concerning to me as well.

Um with a roundabout, it's extremely dangerous already as it is.

I can't imagine how it's going to go with a roundabout there with the number of cars that are going through.

It would be great to utilize 52 as a as a commuting corridor, which it currently is, to facilitate the quick movement of cars and not as a residential type street.

The current roundabouts that we put in Erie do not seem to work with the number of trucks that are driving through.

Having seen several trucks ride over them.

Um, can we please get somebody other than Lenar to build these houses?

I I we do not need an Erie, another Lenar community.

They all look the same.

It's extremely hard to resell any of these houses that are going for sale in the communities.

It would be nice to have something unique and cool and fun to be able to sell like Erie Village or Westerly.

That would be amazing to have.

And if you haven't already, the market, I don't think will sustain all of these houses.

You're talking almost 3,000 new houses in that one general area.

It will decrease the cost of housing, it will impact resale, and do we really need all of these houses?

Where are these kids going to go to school?

Where are they gonna play?

There's no community center being planned.

It's just it's gonna be so overcrowded.

Those are my thoughts.

Thank you.

So is there so again to repeat that this is not an interactive question and answer?

So we can't address questions at rest.

Is there anybody else in the waiting room?

Um there is not.

Okay.

So the time is now 7.15, and um, yeah.

So would the applicant and staff like to make any response to the commission about the public comments?

Um I I can take a shot at uh at sort of the highway 52 ones.

We're we're a little bit beholden to C DOT on that.

We don't have a lot of authority to propose.

Well, I mean, they they tell us what to do, is really how that that works.

Um we have to we have to work with them, we have to collaborate with them, we have to go to our neighbors and seek additional land if they want a roundabout versus a signal, but but if they say you know, a signal versus a roundabout, that's not our that's something that we have to to work with work with them on.

Um in terms of XL D cell lanes uh at our uh entrances, those are something that will be planned at as part of the final plat documents.

Um and we're we've we've been working with uh Chris and his neighbors.

Um so if some if that's something that we can work on with C again it's it's not our our call, it's really C dot's call.

Um I you know I don't know if you know Harry, if you could answer the the existing school uh one.

Um we are definitely planning a pool uh and we don't have necessarily a specific builder in mind.

So yeah, I think I'll jump back to the first question.

Um I uh agree with what John said.

So ultimately the um as a state highway, uh C dot does have jurisdiction over that roadway.

So we are we of course work with them and they work with us uh to find solutions on traffic improvements, but ultimately uh uh it is their decision.

Um and and I think the conversation has been um productive with them.

I think uh we uh they they were a referral agency on um uh on this project and we so in regards to the traffic signal versus the roundabout I think there are trade-offs there.

I think the hope with a roundabout is it's it it it does result in lower speeds, but it should be more constant traffic flow rather than a sort of uh stop and go associated with the signal and and I think other the other main benefit that um CDOT I think advocates through or advocates for with the use of roundabouts is to decrease um serious accidents because you have uh fewer sort of conflicting uh T-bone type movements in general the accidents tend to be less serious.

But I I think yeah, certainly we we can continue to work with C DOT um in future applications to determine the exact nature of the traffic improvements and and whether there's uh some combination of traffic signal uh traffic circle uh D cell lanes of those type of things.

Um in terms of schools, so uh I believe Erie Elementary School is the closest and would serve this.

I will say SVVSD.

Um it's it's not that they're not gonna put a school in at this location, it's just that right now they're building a brand new uh elementary school or they're about to start building a new elementary school in Colliers Hill.

Um and so that's their focus for the short term.

And I think I think that will redraw some of the boundaries so kids and um those areas that go to Erie Highlands Elementary School and or Erie Elementary uh would go to the Collier's school, and so there would be some redistribution going on.

Um I I don't know if the applicant has any more updated information, but I but yeah, I think the since the school district often depends on bond measures and things for their construction.

I think uh it's not that they're not gonna build a school here, it's just that it's not in their uh next year to couple plan or couple year plans.

All right.

Thank you very much for that.

So we'll now move to commissioner questions.

Let's start with two per commissioner and see how we go.

I know I had more than two myself, so um and we'll see how we're gonna do.

So you want to start?

Of course.

Um two or three.

Two or three questions.

Start with two and then we'll figure out how it goes.

Okay.

Uh thank you, staff.

Thank you to the applicant for the presentations.

Um there was a note that was made by staff that I wanted to see if we can receive clarification on.

Um there was a comment about uh saying that there was soil contamination that requires remediation.

Now, can you clarify what this was?

Is this one of the multiple leaks that was identified?

Either the staining and potential groundwater contamination on the northern portion that we have not received word back from Kerm Gee on in terms of did they remediate fully the groundwater?

Is this the tank battery facility on the south side?

Like where exactly is this contamination because there's multiple occurrences of contamination.

Is this a new contamination that was identified?

I may also let the applicant answer that.

So it's in hopefully you can see my mouse here.

This uh northeast portion.

Uh I know that mouse, yeah, it's probably hard to see.

Uh so it's associated with um some underground pipes that were serving one of the oil and gas wells.

Um the specific company I think I want to say KPK well, or was it Kermeggy?

Um and so that was uh soil contamination associated with that pipe.

And so um, yeah, I believe there was some question about the the cleanup because that cleanup was supposed to happen with the plug and abandoning uh process of the well.

Um and so I I believe you're referring to it in the uh first description you gave.

So the there was some question about the completeness of that cleanup effort, and so we've uh or the applicant has been working with the state agency to ensure that uh the remainder of that cleanup and that soil cleanup takes place.

I assume that's the remediation that you were referring to.

That that's correct.

And our neighbors have in instruct or you know, let us know that not soil cleanup, but just general the the some of the wells that have been uh plugged and abandoned, they need to be regraded.

Like they didn't just they just didn't do a very good job on some of them.

So there's soil cleanup and then there's just general cleanup as well that we're gonna work with the operators on.

Okay.

Well, the uh I know there's in the environmental study, but this is 2014.

Is there also gonna be the groundwater monitoring as well that's gonna be included with that?

Yeah, whatever the ECMC requires is what the operators are gonna have to do.

Okay.

Um okay, now litany of questions over here, but I'm gonna just stand there when we guess for a second.

Um I understand that uh based on the annexation agreement, based on when the uh initial plans came through, having seen these way back when you are beholden on the municipal code at that time or what's within your annexation agreement.

So um I see that there is the 50 by 150 that is the current standard within our municipal code.

Um there is currently identified a pocket park.

Uh this is on the very west side.

It does appear as though there is a plug and abandoned well or a couple of them that are right next to there.

They are next to it, they're in a separate tract as required.

Okay, so they're in a separate track.

The park does not actually doesn't touch them.

It doesn't touch the 50 by 100 boxes.

Okay.

Okay, that is all.

Thank you.

My turn.

Thank you.

Um I guess I'll stick with the C dot.

Um, I know that there's not a lot that you have power to control.

Do we know just in general with our work with um CDOT what highway 52 plans are in the future and what those timelines look like?

Um especially with widening that road.

Widening.

I don't know if the applicant has more information on that.

I so the the current plan for CDOT is for a roundabout and not a traffic signal at that highway 52 and county road three.

I believe there will be um as as the member of the public mentioned, there are a number of outside Erie um projects that would be sort of contributing impacts to this intersection.

And so I believe um part of the conversation in the final plat and the development agreement might be figuring out the sharing of costs um in terms of timing.

I would think uh that ultimately would be up to CDOT.

I think our uh our work in the final plat and development agreement will also talk about timing of public improvements, but I think ultimately the timing would be up to CDOT.

And I I don't have a grasp of that timing to share at the moment.

Um, but I think it would be sort of concurrent with some of this development coming online or or preceding this development coming online.

Have you heard of rumors of widening I have not personally?

Okay, yeah.

Um and then my my other question regarding that is when CDOT gets involved in a new development.

So I think somebody had mentioned you know the three different neighborhoods out there, four.

If you want to include Morgan Hill, when they look at things, do they take into consideration all of those neighborhoods, or are they just looking at the impact from this one development?

That's a good question.

So C CDOT will look at impacts from neighboring communities too, and they do have uh what's called a access control plan.

Um that is sort of their long-term goal for sometimes consolidating access points if there are um kind of old driveways or like private accesses onto highway 52 uh being sort of a rural condition and a lot of or for a lot of its frontage.

So um that plan calls for consolidating accesses in some point or at some points, and then um also uh proposes yeah, certain intersections that are gonna be full movement versus like right in right out would be allowed here, but no no new full movement access point.

So they do they do consider that in their sort of long range planning.

Um so these two or or this this one new entrance on uh from highway 52 is contemplated as part of that access control plan, uh, and then of course the improvements at the highway 52 and county road three uh intersection are contemplated in there as well.

Okay.

Thanks.

Mr.

Burns.

All right.

Um we're gonna I guess uh we'll continue to beat on this traffic control thing here.

Um so I I'll note that there was a uh a traffic study included in the in the application, which I appreciate to have that information in there.

And they noted that um they don't expect anything.

I I'm assuming before 2030, certainly, um, and their projections uh go out to 2050.

Um they note that the current um level of service, specifically at County Road 3 and 52, is not good because it's not signalized and it's uh missive turn, even though without the traffic on the other side.

Um that CDOT will if and when they do widen, as Commissioner Booth mentioned, uh it will take a while for C DOT probably to come along to to do the studies, design, let build that kind of widening and including this roundabout.

Is there uh uh any consideration as part of this development to widen the capacity of the intersection at CR3 specifically um coming into the 52 because you're gonna have a lot more traffic potentially waiting to turn left or right?

For sure.

So I I know that we will need to do XL D cell turn lanes, all of that kind of stuff at a minimum, but I think C DOT is gonna require that either a sign uh well, they don't want a traffic signal, but they're gonna require that roundabout much earlier.

Like we our our development team is anticipating they're gonna be contributing to that relatively early in the process.

Okay.

Um note that especially with uh a higher speed roundabout as opposed to the ones maybe downtown.

Fair and it takes a pretty good footprint.

Yeah, that held us up for a long time.

It's gonna chew up um a lot more space, I think that's at the current intersection, and a lot of that capacity that's currently there, which is not a lot, is gonna go away.

So definitely would ask that you guys make keep that in mind, the inner the interim condition of the intersection and not the the full build out um for capacity because not only you have all the houses here in the in the current traffic on on County Road 3, it looks like whenever this commercial comes along, its only access is gonna be through that uh onto CR3.

You won't have any ability to get on to 52 directly.

And if the other access point on the west northwestern corner opposite the reclamation access road um is problematic, I can see people coming down to this intersection as well to get on to 52.

So you you might have a pretty good choke point down here.

Um that's more of an observation perhaps than a question.

Um the other thing I was kind of wondering.

Um traffic related.

Um I noted that you guys are are uh maintaining the irrigation ditches uh that that are in this location, this area with the proposed double box culvert um that's gonna be going in on the northwestern corner.

Um is that going to affect these irrigation ditches that are in the northeast kind of no?

We're so the we can't direct any drainage towards irrigation ditches, so we actually have to go underneath them.

Yeah, and so there the those waters don't co-mingle, if you will.

Okay.

Because it looked like just the general alignment plans of the box is really coming up to the wetlands.

I didn't know if it kind of is is going to affect the flow from the location ditch.

No, and and we've actually had to work and get agreements with the ditches to do those crossings.

That that's another thing that took quite a while.

Yeah, that's that's a touchy subject.

For sure.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Babe.

I'll take up the stand on the C dot issues also.

Um for that entrance coming into the duplex product.

Is that going to be right in right out, or is that proposed as a traffic circle also?

Well, it the traffic circle is a new conversation.

It's it aligns with the uh town's access road to the north.

And so it's anticipated as a full movement intersection ultimately signalized.

Okay.

All right.

So that'll move that stop point further to the west along with the roundabout.

Using some of the traffic as it comes across from 25.

Okay.

Um that's the only question.

And I think that's my fault.

I think I confused the I I described that as a roundabout, and I should have said traffic signal there.

I was thinking about the traffic signal at uh highway 52 and county red three.

So that's probably my fault that that confuses.

Looking at that secondary entrance, it it seems to be fewer units, so it's gonna see far less use as compared to what's on the east side near the school entrance.

So connectivity to Morgan Hill.

Looks like there's one or two.

Uh just one.

There's if the Morgan Hill had a right of way stubbed out to this property and and we matched it.

Okay.

That's all the questions I think.

Uh my question is regarding the open space.

So I know there's 162 acres of private open space and then 35 uh dedicated open space.

Is it actually usable for area residents, or is it more because like wetlands and easements surrounding those ditches aren't actually like I mean the view shed aspect is great, but it's not usable really beyond that for recreation for residents.

Is any of that gonna be so the 162 is is like the total 35 is going to the town, and then I think it's 123, something like that.

Um you are correct, like between the ditches, that's more view preservation natural character, but it does include all the spine trail areas, all the pocket parks, okay, um, and the parks uh yeah, all the pocket parks.

I keep thinking we have a neighborhood park because that one park is is large, but it's not a neighborhood park.

They're just all the pocket parks and all the trail corridors.

So in in some ways it's quite usable, in other ways it's more view shed.

Okay, that makes sense.

And then um is the Boulderwell ditch and lower boulder, are they gonna concrete in their ditches in that do you know in that area?

Is that their plan?

We have not heard anything about them lining those those ditches.

Yeah, it wouldn't look as pretty, I guess.

But okay, that was my only question.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay.

I'll give my first two and then we'll go around again.

Um I had a lot on traffic, but we've covered a lot of that already, so I won't do that.

Ostab, the open space and trails advisory board.

When I talked with them, they hadn't seen an updated plan since the 21 plan.

Which I found a little surprising.

So that's almost more of a comment that we should get it to them.

Uh for their I did actually send it to them, so early send them a link to it.

Uh so I mean it's great the amount of open space.

I do have a question about the crusher fine trails that you're gonna put in.

Only because the town has stopped using crusher fine because of maintenance.

Sure.

So just so you're aware of the maintenance is not insignificant for crusher fine.

For sure.

Yeah, that was at the request of the adjacent neighbors.

Um that that was their preference, and we we agreed to it.

Okay.

Um and I I greatly appreciate I before I was on this board, I was chair of host space, so I I still have a love for that.

Um the drain.

Before I joined the commission, I didn't realize how much work goes into both traffic and uh the irrigation and the drainage plans.

And so I really appreciate what you've done there for the community.

I don't know if you've noticed that there is a very, very detailed traffic plan which talks about the delays at each intersection and things.

So if you haven't looked at that, I I think it's worth doing one little knit is the largest lot.

And some places it's 65 by 120, and some places it's 65 by 115.

Yeah, uh for the same lot.

So well, it's this the same width that when we can get a little extra depth, we we try to, but we may have gotten some areas where we couldn't quite get that depth.

Okay.

Uh I guess what I'm saying is the legends are different for the same lot in different pictures.

So we can go over that afterwards.

I'll find that.

Yeah, so it's not that critical.

Um those are my two.

I've got others, but um Commissioner Summits, you have other questions?

Yeah, I'm gonna hop back on the uh traffic bandwagon.

Um this is probably gonna be for staff, but uh applicant can uh chime in as well.

Um with all the plans at that north water wastewater treatment facility, and how this intersection is going to intersect with our driveway in there.

Um have we received comments from our public works department in terms of their thoughts on the matter?

Because obviously we don't want to impede their ability to access that facility as well as all the vendors contractors and whatnot that we may have in the future.

That's a good question.

Yeah, the plans have gone through engineering and public works and and the utilities team.

Um and I I think the general sense is that the this improvement would be a benefit, I guess, to have an actual traffic signal there.

Um it doesn't uh at least not that I'm aware of interfere with it or that none that they've mentioned interfere with any of their plans for the site, and I think they're actually planning on um having this traffic uh signal in the future.

So um I think it benefits access to that site as well, or our site as well.

Okay, we we were specifically requested to align with it by public works, so yeah.

Okay, so that that's why it lines up well then because you were requested.

Okay, perfect.

Um back to the whole CDOT conversation.

Um there were the uh CDOT has the access control point map basically from where it starts at 119 all the way out east out to what 85, I think it is.

Um have you have you petitioned or has the town petitioned to have the access control points addressed in that because I would assume that all of their conversations, how they want to have the traffic movements is all going to be based on that.

They have significant amount of these that they want to remove or restrict.

Um how do these new access point requirements come into play?

Um, or has this been layered into that access control plan already?

These access points have been or or are a part of the access control plan.

So the the access control plan doesn't call for the removal of the um any any of the entrances associated with this development.

So um they're mostly well, I I don't I don't know if um if I can recall off the top of my head, but in any either case, yeah.

So the this connection to highway 52 with this new Spring Hill Road um coming up to the north is part of that access control plan or is anticipated in there.

Um, and then the improvements to the highway 52 and county red three are also in there.

So neither neither of those are um I guess mentioned as accesses to be removed.

There is a process sort of to your earlier or first part of your question, there is a process to petition um for additional accesses or different types of access.

So if it um restricts something to a red in right out, you can petition it to a full movement.

Um but we we didn't have to do that with any of uh or either of these two intersections here.

Okay, and and when we looked at the level service and the impact study, it took into account the movement across the street in terms of the town's own facility.

Um, because that could be something that impacts that because say if it's not a full movement that can occur there because C Doc comes back and says, hey, it's right uh you know, right in, right out only.

Um does that potentially then impact the opposite side as well because we don't want to have you know big machinery and vehicles having any potential uh you know issues.

Yeah, I'll take that one.

Yeah, you were correct, that would be a problem, but um our traffic consultant has been meeting rigorously with CDOT and ensuring that these locations are on their access control plans.

CDOT reviews the traffic study that says this is uh uh I keep pointing, you can't see the the uh western access location will will likely be a signal once it meets warrants.

So warrants are kind of technical, but you have to go like once it hits a certain amount of traffic and and and things of that nature, then it's eligible for a signal and and CDOT's well aware of that.

Yeah, I saw the study, I believe it said um nothing was warranted as of right now because of the 70% level.

Um it was I believe it was two of four hours at one intersection and then one of four.

Right, and then there was the other one that didn't meet the threshold, and just so nothing is warranted right now as it stands.

Um there would have to be additional studies later on to prove that they are warranted if and when the time comes.

Correct.

Correct.

And and as this develops and as the town's facility develops, that will actually help uh getting a signal there sooner rather than later.

Okay.

That's all for enough, I guess.

Yes.

Follow up to the warranted question.

Um when Click when C dot determines, um, how does that how does that work?

Like, does the town have to initiate them to come back out and see if it's now warranted, or is that something that they do on their own?

Uh that would be so that that is a good question.

So our we have uh transportation engineers on staff here in the public works department.

And so with a subsequent application, so if if this were a pro this preliminary plat were approved, it would have to come back for a final plat, or sometimes, you know, sometimes they break things into separate filings and so they come back multiple times.

But in any case, when we get a final plat application or or any of the subsequent applications, they would at very least have to submit a traffic conformance letter that is sort of a short traffic study version, just saying the it doesn't change anything that was found on this more detailed report.

Um but typically I think our uh transportation engineers require updated traffic counts every two years, I believe.

So um so that it it may future applications um may or probably would require updated traffic counts too.

And so that would help um sort of update the data on on some level we we do sort of still rely on projections for when traffic signals will be warranted.

And the way I understand it is there's actually some uh liability involved if you build a traffic signal before it's technically warranted or before it's been shown to be warranted.

Um if a traffic or if an accident happens, um there's some question of liability.

I think so.

That's probably more in the weeds, but um yeah, I guess the sh sorry, the short answer I uh I suppose is that we we town staff would continue to verify that in the data um and forthcoming applications.

Okay.

I'm gonna get off of traffic now.

Anything else?

I'm gonna go to schools.

Okay.

Uh the Frederick High School.

Is that complete yet?

It's not.

It's currently under construction.

I believe it's planned to open in the fall of next year.

Of this uh of 2026.

Okay.

Um because looking at the counts, it looks like the high school is where the overcrowding is.

And my subsequent question to that is the school on this property is going to be an elementary.

Yes.

Okay.

Yep.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Um I did have a question.

Um I noted in staff report um it talked about um some groundwater locations other than the wet ones.

Um approximately where, I guess, in the would that potentially affect foundations and and such things?

Sure.

Yeah.

So there is some lower groundwater.

Um, well, the way the property sits, all this single family detached is kind of a little bit up higher, and the the property kind of slowly uh gets lower as it gets toward highway 52.

So there's some isolated pockets of potential groundwater in either the duplex or town home areas, but neither one of them would likely have basements.

So it it's just not a it's a non-issue.

Okay.

I wasn't sure if it was in more of the single family houses.

Oh no.

I didn't figure it would be as much of an issue with the townhouses.

I just wasn't sure exactly where it was.

Um I I guess I just wanted to note the I know that the application talks about it goes back to 2014 and with the oil and gas setbacks.

Um the with the limits back in 2014 only being um 25 feet.

Um, but that I appreciate that you guys have accommodated the current setbacks.

So I figured that would just be stated.

wasn't sure exactly where it was um and um i i got i just wanted to note the i know that the application talks about it goes back to 2014 and with the oil and gas setbacks um the with the limits back in 2014 only being um 25 feet um but that i appreciate that you guys have accommodated the current setbacks so i figured that would should just be stated thank you so it's something that's not always uh accommodated and people will take advantage of the grandfathering uh for setbacks but um yeah don't really want to live on top of uh an old well commissioner bam anything else nothing else commissioner dripman no okay two there should be fast uh one for the applicant I didn't see Allo listed as one of the internet providers are you working with them we're not it's right we're not I we haven't we're not working with any internet providers at this time okay I mean that we don't get into the dry utilities and they don't they won't look at us until we have a final plan.

Sounds good.

They're gonna be required to yeah I would expect so well it's it's in the contract they're required to yeah so it just was yeah yep they listed a few utilities but not that one so all right um the other thing was drainage this is actually more for staff there was an interesting comment about FEMA does not have any application on Weld County therefore all areas in white have no recorded floodplains which I just thought was an interesting note I wasn't sure if do you was that in the staff report no no it was in one of their documents oh okay um I just wondered if you concurred with that it just seemed like a strange statement yeah the wording I think does seem a little odd but uh I can confirm that the floodplain yeah uh is does not overlap with any of the Spring Hill um where the residential is or or I believe even actually the open space property um but it is there is floodplain directly to the west of the spray I did notice them so that's why I thought that statement was unique.

Yeah the wording is a little odd on that I don't know exactly anyways yeah anybody have any other questions if uh yeah real real quickly I do okay um there are these commitments that are noted in terms of the neighborhood meeting um specifically it was uh the trail connection to the west construct so construct the landscape berms provide perimeter fencing and then maintain the open space areas um can you just quickly elaborate on those exactly so first off trail connection where exactly this trail connection is is this something that's identified already in the landscape plan or is it something that is still yet to be designed no the the trail connection I'm gonna see if I can no I can't oh wait I've got a trail map yes so this uh orange trail heading to the west is the the alignment and there's a a a bridge over the uh irrigation ditch um and it goes to the point where the the end of the road for the uh adjacent neighborhood is so that's memorialized in the landscape plans itself the berms and uh plantings are memorialized in the landscape plans the only thing that's not memorialized in the landscape plans and it's because the uh adjacent neighbors they get to kind of pick their own fence style um so we've met with all the neighbors in the the sort of horseshoe looking area kind of up by highway 52 there and they all know that they can select uh a fence of their of their choosing um some of them want an open fence some of them want a privacy fence some of the larger properties want a combination of privacy and open rail fence on their property so um I don't I don't know if we'll if we'll even ever put it in our plans it's just a commitment that we've made to them okay is it just out of curiosity is it on their property or is it on your property?

It it if it goes on our property it'll have to be on our plans.

Correct if we put it on their property which is kind of the conversations we're having then it would never show up on our plans.

Okay.

And then um maintain open space areas protect drainage irrigation the yeah so they're it's concerned with anything that kind of comes close to their properties and we're just making the commitment that any of that private open space is maintained by the metro district.

Okay that's all thank you.

Okay.

Anything else if not the time is now 849 and I'm closing the public hearing and into 749.

I'm sorry 749.

Sorry yeah um thank you 749 closing public hearing and into the commissioner deliberations open the floor to the commission anybody want to start yeah so so first off commenting on this whole uh highway 52 thing um this is possibly the worst impact uh study that I've seen in terms of level of service projected F's up the board E's around I mean we usually see C or D at the worst and that is exactly what the issue has been on 52 um I applaud the applicant for working with C dot and for helping with staff trying to approach C dot on this because we've been trying for years to try to get that wine there are so many accidents uh many fatal accidents because of the lack of winding and the lack of infrastructure there I do

I mean, we usually see C or D at the worst.

And that is exactly what the issue has been on 52.

Um I applaud the applicant for working with CDOT and for helping with staff trying to approach CDOT on this because we've been trying for years to try to get that wine.

There are so many accidents, uh many fatal accidents because of the lack of winding and the lack of infrastructure there.

I do have concerns also about the roundabout on 52, um, but that is not up to us.

It is not up to the applicant, it is completely on CDOT.

Um, there is another forum to voice your concerns to CDOT, and I would recommend that.

Highly recommend that because unless there's enough public outcry, they're just gonna drag their feet.

Um I want to applaud you for having the specific items in here that are commitments to you, that you're hearing the residents that you understand their concerns, and you're trying to address them, and you have not only said in this public hearing, but you have put it in writing what those commitments are.

We rarely see that.

Um, usually it's just something, yeah, we'll talk about it afterwards and we'll try to get together, but you have this in here.

Um this is uh in my eyes a well thought out community, lots of open space.

Uh I know that there's more plans later to come, but I'm excited to see this.

So that's all.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I I would echo a lot of what he said.

I think I noticed in the um neighborhood meetings, like how you guys addressed all of the residents, their concerns and their comments.

Um I've also not seen it laid out like that prior.

I also think this is gonna be a great neighborhood.

C dot.

Um again, no control in this room on how that goes, but it's definitely a concern.

Anything nothing to add?

Anyway, yeah, no.

So I'm just gonna say it's been a long slog.

Yes, and I really appreciate everything that you've done as the others have said too.

The traffic study, the um trail plan, the irrigation, it's all been great.

So uh I just want to thank you.

All right, I think we've had enough deliberation.

So who wants to make uh a motion for P2607 resolution?

I have it written down if someone wants to.

Commissioner Drakman, thank you.

Um to approve resolution number P two six zero seven, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval of the spring hill preliminary plot with the conditions.

Second, Burns.

Okay, thank you.

So we now have a motion and a second.

Does anybody want to request a roll call vote?

Or if not.

Okay, all in favor?

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, the motion carries.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next.

So next we're um second item is another public hearing, 2026 207, a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval to the town council of the rezoning of the Sierra Vista property to community mixed use CMU and Airport AP.

The time is now 753.

And I'm opening the public hearing.

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

Thank you.

Be right with you.

Settled in Mr.

Barris.

Would you mind uh the control in the crowd, please?

Oh, yeah, if we could please have some quiet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, I'm set.

All right.

Sorry, it took me a minute.

It's all right.

Thank you.

Chris Larry, principal planner at town of Erie.

I'm here tonight to present the Sierra of Vista rezoning request.

So this is for a um planning commission recommendation to town council and the rezoning.

Uh also town council will consider a minor subdivision request that will go concurrently with the rezoning.

And that's only heard by town council.

Uh project size is approximately 60 acres.

They're proposing 16 acres to go to airport zoning, 18 acres for CMU, and then another track that would be 26 acres, and that would also go to CMU or community mixed use, and AP is airport zoning.

So yeah, they're proposing this on three tracks with the minor sub.

Existing zoning is LR, low density residential, and community commercial.

The site is currently undeveloped.

So the point in the process that we're at here is that the rezoning that's highlighted on the screen.

In the past, 2012 was when the property was annexed into the town.

It included an annexation agreement that allowed up to 500 units of multifamily residential.

There's a little bit of a history on the site that I outlined in the staff report with some different rezonings, some preliminary plat, and then there were also a couple of minor subdivisions.

So this is kind of the first stage or the first part.

If the rezoning is successful, they'll be required to go through both a preliminary plat application and a final plat.

Would be a public hearing process that would go before planning commission as well as town council.

The final plat would go typically on the consent calendar for town council for review of dedication of the easements and review of the development agreement.

If those are successful, site planning would be required for commercial development and any residential development.

And so from there, go to public improvements, and then ultimately building permits.

This is a multi-year kind of timeline.

So we're kind of in the very beginning.

So I'll go over the background tonight of the application, what the proposal is, and then the recommendation.

So here's the site on the screen highlighted in red.

It's northwest of Highway 7 and Bonanza Drive.

Bonanza is over here to the east of the property.

Highway 7 is down here to the south.

To the north is the air park development, and then to the north and west is the Erie Airport.

Airport, sorry.

Over here to the east, then there are some commercial developments consisting of the gas station, daycare, there's a storage facility.

Here's a few shots with the Google Street View.

This is looking north on Bonanza at Highway 7 that's running east and west.

You can see the gas station on the right, and the site is on the northwest corner.

And highway seven going to the west.

There's another view just looking.

This is from higher up on Bonanza, a little north of Highway 7, looking directly west into the site.

The existing zoning of the property you can see on the screen is low density residential, and there's also community commercial there on the northwest corner.

This would allow the LR zoning would allow single family detached or duplex at three to five dwelling units per acre, and the community commercial would allow a full range of community-oriented and retail and service uses.

The comprehensive plan does it designates a majority of the site as employment, and then also corridor commercial and the employment kind of the broad uses are employment type uses, such as industrial effect space, light manufacturing, there could be medical technical facilities, aeronautical incubator spaces.

Does allow residential?

It's supposed to be that it doesn't detract significantly from the primary employment focused intent, but it would allow some.

And then of course the any residential they propose would be in keeping with the annexation agreement.

The corridor commercial or uses that generate regional activity along highways and major arterials.

Residential can be secondary.

There's a variety of comprehensive plan policies that the proposal would hit.

It includes mix of housing types to encourage a variety of housing, activity centers for residents, making sure that we're new development meets comp plan vision and priorities, encourages infill development, promotes mixed-use neighborhoods, diverse housing opportunities near employment, trying to create cultivate a mix of local and creative businesses, potentially expanding use of the airport as a community resource, and locating higher density housing in mixed use development areas that are served by transit.

So here's the applicant's proposal.

Uh they are showing uh an area of AP or airport that's on the northwest of the site there, consists of 15.9 acres.

Uh, there's community mixed use, two areas for that tracks B and C.

Uh, the one on the northeast is 26.1 acres, and the one kind of on the south along seven is 18.4 acres.

Um, community mixed or airport, I should say, it allows related uses in commercials such as restaurants, offices, or general retail.

The community mixed use when they're uh of a certain size that like these are they have to have certain number of principal uses.

Um, if it's up to 20 acres, they have to have at least two uses.

Over 20 must have three principal uses.

Uh, one of those uses in each case must be residential, and then each of the different uses uh within the three categories have to have at least 25% of the gross floor area distributed among those different uses.

We don't have a proposal exactly of how that would look at this point, uh, given that it's pretty early since it's the rezoning stage, but they have provided this kind of overall concept plan showing the airport use and then the community mixed use in two blocks here.

Um it's anticipated that access would come from Bonanza, any kind of access to seven would have to be coordinated through CDOT.

Uh we would note that the developer has provided um several commitments.

They're private commitments they've made.

Uh they are not zoning requirements, uh, and they're not necessarily enforceable by the town, but they have said they would limit building heights, um, they would create 40-foot buffers, and then also 100 foot buffers for commercial relative to the residential uses.

So the idea would be that uh they're committing to uh keep things, especially in the north end to a more um reasonable scale compared to what's developed next to it.

So these are the approval criteria that we've view rezonings against.

Um just I detailed them in the staff report, so I'll just kind of briefly go over those.

Uh there's general um promoting public health safety, general welfare, consistent with the comp plan purposes of the UDC, having adequate facilities and services, streets, transportation, um water, gas utilities.

I would note on the transportation applicants did submit a detailed traffic study.

We reviewed it back and forth quite a bit.

Uh there are still a lot of outstanding issues that would be expected to be addressed at future applications with plating and site plans once those come in.

Um, but we did our transportation department reviewed that extensively.

Um it's not anticipated to result in significant and adverse impacts uh to the environment and surrounding area.

It's not likely to result significant adverse impacts on other property.

Um future uses would need to be compatible in scale.

Uh rezonings generally consistent with town's economic development goals and objectives to bring positive growth to the town.

So we do find that the application complies with the approval criteria and recommends the planning commission adopt the resolution recommending the town council approve the Sierra Vista rezoning to airport, AP and community mixed use, just shown on the zoning map.

Applicant did hold a neighborhood meeting last year in the fall.

They reported 47 attendees.

Seems like they had a variety of questions on uses, traffic, and utilities for the site.

The hearing tonight has been appropriately published in the paper, posted with a notice sign and letters sent to property owners adjacent to the site.

So that concludes the staff presentation tonight for the Sierra Vista rezoning.

The applicant does have a presentation.

I will pull that up for them.

And I'll put the mouse for them to control over here.

Thank you.

And let's see.

Okay.

Hello, distinguished planning commissioners.

My name is Heidi Majarek.

I am with uh Gage Land Development.

I am an owner's rep to the applicant.

Um I'm so pleased to be here tonight with you all.

Thank you for giving us this opportunity to present to you real quick.

I'm not sure if I need to provide it, but addresses 8827 East 35th Avenue, Denver.

Also wanted to thank Chris for the great presentation.

I'm gonna try not to replicate the things he's already said because you guys have been here for a while already.

I do want to take a moment to introduce our team in the front row and let you know that they'll all be available for your questions.

We have Diana Rayel and Becca Bailey, who are both with Norris.

They are the land planners.

Um we've got Kevin Lovelace with LJA, the engineer, as well as Wyatt Carlson, who is the owner.

Let's see.

So we're gonna skip through that.

Um and then we just wanted to talk a little bit um about the zone districts that we're asking for.

Chris had reviewed those for you.

Um we are asking for approval on that as well as the supporting minor subdivision, which will bring us into compliance, bring the site into compliance with the comp plan.

So the zone districts um before you tonight were selected in collaboration with town staff and consideration of the town's stated goals in the complan, as well as the needs and the desires that have been expressed by the FAA through the years on the previous um rezoning and applications that Chris had in his staff report.

And specifically what we've heard from them in the past is they want bigger setbacks off of the airport than that were previously provided, and um specifically around residential development.

And so that AP zone district, in addition to the mixed use was selected to try to um address those issues that we heard, and we'll kind of take a look later in the presentation of a map that shows you the restrictions around the airport.

Um and so I'm gonna turn it over to Di to just go through.

Sorry, Diana, we've known each other for a long time.

You got the nickname there.

Um ask her to go through in more detail that comprehensive plan and the and the zoning.

And I'm gonna borrow this.

Thank you, Heidi.

Uh good evening, as Heidi mentioned, I'm Diana Rayle from Norse Design.

We're at 1101 Bannick Street in Denver, Colorado, 80204.

Um, that's nice to be here this evening.

Um just a quick point on the comp plan and a little bit of history in 2015.

The comp plan for this area, um, as you can see, maybe I can use the mouse.

Oh, nope, that scrolls.

Um, there were two districts um similar to today.

The biggest difference from what you'll see from 2015 to 2024, which is the current comp plan on the left, is the nomenclature changed a little bit from mixed use MU in the pink um in 2015 and community commercial to employment and corridor commercial.

So a little bit of nomenclature change.

I think with all intents and purposes, the employment um designation sort of has the same form and function as what used to be mixed use.

So you heard a lot of that in Chris's presentation as well, and some of the uses that we're presenting.

Um, I do want to point out in the existing zoning with the LR, low density residential.

You'll notice that that does not necessarily comply with the comp plan.

Um low density residential only allows for two types of single family and single family attached residential, which by no means is employment or in any way mixed use.

So we believe that the rezoning proposed here on the right side with the airport, as Heidi mentioned, further buffers to the airport, the active runway on the west, um, in addition to the CMU district, which allows for corridor commercial um and employment in that zone is um a more proper zone category for for the property.

Um, and then Chris already showed this graphic.

It's kind of shows you everything sort of blended into the two land uses.

But in this case, we've got those uses highlighted on this slide, and it kind of shows you the types of uses we would anticipate it in an airport zone on the left there with a variety of uses, um, many of which are also in the staff report um highlighted by Chris, with anything from general retail, restaurants, aviation support, offices, um, utility facilities, those types of things again, very mixed use category, um, and then the community mixed use zone district, um, CMU, which allows for the mix of uses.

We do have to have three in the area, um, and then one predominant use of at least 25%.

And that kind of shows you a list of the types of uses that could happen there.

All together, we believe that this is a more diverse plan, a more uh a better mix of uses, the ability to provide um employment, retail, housing, um, and uh activity centers for the community.

So, again, kind of supporting the vision of the comp plan with a wide variety of uses.

And with that, I'll hand it back to Heidi.

Yeah, great.

Thank you, Diana.

Um, so this slide um it details our application and review process for this rezoning and minor subdivision.

Um we conducted two community meetings, one properly noticed, and we did um conduct a second one as well.

From those meetings, you saw we had 47 people sign up.

So we did create a stakeholder email list from that.

Um, and from that, because we were hearing you know, varied concerns from the community, and there was you know a lot of interest in, you know, I mean, it's always stressful when a piece of property gets rezoned near yours.

Um, we decided to put together a stakeholder list of all of the emails that we could collect, and then after that, we sent out four emails that um included links to our resubmittals as well as summaries of what changed in each application to try to help the community digest it.

Um then we also provided notification to the neighborhood, all of our stakeholders of tonight's hearing, um, as well as town council hearing in the event that we are approved this evening.

Um, and so in addition, um, myself and and Becca made ourselves available as much as we possibly could.

Um, the community was really engaging with us.

Um, they did reach out to us, they um reached out to us phone calls and emails, um, always very respectful, um, really nice dialogue with the neighbors.

We appreciated the way they treated us, um, and we you know spent as much time as we possibly could talking to them.

And so, um, you got it, oh, sorry, you gotta back knowledge.

You're my wingman.

So, with that many people engaged, there are a lot of stakeholders.

So, we're gonna kind of go through some of the big bucket item concerns we heard from the community.

It certainly won't be exhaustive because with that many people, you're gonna get a lot of different voices.

Sometimes those voices don't agree.

And so, you know, that's our job to kind of sort through that and see how we can at least make it um at least make it better.

So, we heard concerns from the Anthem residents in Broomfield, as well as the city of Broomfield, uh City and County of Um Broomfield.

And um we heard concerns from them that this rezoning would increase air traffic.

Um, and then additionally from the city of Broomfield through our review process, we heard a second comment from them, which was wanting to restrict some of the uses in the town of these AP zoning code.

So after we heard these concerns from the first meeting from Anthem and Broomfield about increasing air traffic, we um talked to staff, and after and after that, we hired an avigation consultant, um, which is Mead and Hunt to assess the the impacts of the proposed AP zoning on air traffic and operations.

And so what Mead and Hunt found, um they found that the proposed rezoning to AP is not expected to increase air traffic or change operations.

And then additionally, we communicated with Jason Heard, um, the airport uh manager, and he indicated that this rezoning, which is on the east side of the airport, would not change the way aircraft operate or aircraft traffic patterns, and that there would be no change to the approach or departure corridors.

Um, and it's important to note that the airport operations occur with the exception of the aviators in the air park.

The airport operations occur on the west side, not the east side.

The east side is the is the aviators in the air park.

Um out of these concerns, we tweaked our original boundary in our rezoning.

We included a little more CMU to try to address those concerns from Anthem and Broomfield and you know, decrease the AP and increase the CMU.

And because we are not requesting specialized zoning tonight, we're requesting your straight zone code.

Broomfield's desires to limit the allowed uses in the town's AP zone district would be more appropriately addressed in a future application after a preliminary site development plan.

Because at this time we are just requesting straight zone code.

And so this is this is that map I said we get to where we want to look at the FAA's restrictions.

So there's a part of the FAA's rules called Part 77 that lays out restrictions around airport usage.

So in this map, you'll see the dotted line.

That's the runway protection zone.

And then the color bands that are coming out in kind of that V shape.

Those are the height restrictions around things that get built around the airport.

So you can see this proposed rezoning places the majority of the FAA's restrictions into the proposed AP zoning, um, which was you know important to the FAA, and that's the that's the genesis of these two zone districts that you're looking at.

Additionally, you can see that development opportunities outside of these restrictions is limited in the proposed area of the AP zoning.

Um and so you know it really isn't going to be possible to build more airport to build more runways to build something like that.

So then, you know, talking to the folks in the air park, we heard really reasonable concerns from these residents.

Um they're concerned about protecting their current avigation easements.

They have an easement on the north side of this property to access the airport.

Um so want to make sure that that always gets protect protected for them.

And because we have these low density single family houses on the north side, they're rightfully concerned about any kind of loud commercial use adjacent to their property property that could you know impact their quality of life.

And then they also had expressed concerns about the types of buildings, residential buildings that could come up to them in a multifamily use, wanting to see um quality architecture and appropriate massing and step stepbacks, you know, so we don't have big buildings shading um their homes.

So those were all you know, reasonable, reasonable concerns um that we heard from those folks.

And so we went back to staff and worked with them to provide some notes on the on the um minor subdivision that address these.

So um looking at uh limiting height structures, and Chris already went through this, setting back commercial development, and making sure their easement is protected.

And then I think we're just gonna skip over that's the minor subdivision, we're gonna skip over the review of criteria because Chris already did a great job with that.

And so these are our you know, our next the next steps that Chris reviewed as well with you that it has to go to preliminary plat, it has to go to a um a site development plan.

So, you know, just a reminder that this is um just a rezoning and one real quick thing.

We did get a comment that came in late today, a written comment that I did just want to address.

Um, if you will bear with me, I want to pull up the email.

Um this person had indicated that um they were concerned because staff notes that access to the site is only planned from Bonanza.

So did want to let you know that CDOT in their access control plan does have an access point to this site on highway seven.

So um, and you did hear that we did a preliminary um traffic impact analysis with this site.

Now it is just a rezoning, so we don't know what will be on this site, why it does not have any contracts for purchase and sale on the land, there's no designated or identified use for the land yet.

And so without that, a traffic impact study becomes kind of challenging.

You have to make assumptions.

Um, because the rezoning by the UDC requires the minor subdivision to have the tracks that match that triggers the traffic the traffic impact study.

But when it goes to preliminary plot and then a site plan, then you know what the uses are.

You can do a detailed final um traffic impact analysis.

So with that, um, I'm gonna let you know that we're all available for questions.

Um thanks again.

Oh, and please approve us.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Um the time is now 82.

And uh we'll move to public testimony.

I'm assuming there is some given the number of people here.

I do.

Um I have Brian Bednar.

Okay, so the same comments as I made before are still in play.

The limited three minutes per person.

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

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

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

You'll give an audible warning when you have 20 seconds, and then the color light comes on, and at three minutes you'll be asked to just stop talking, basically.

Um Brian Bednar, 280 Sky Lane Drive in Erie.

Uh, thank you, Commissioner Sowich, for sharing my notes with the others ahead of time.

Um my home borders on the north edge of the proposed uh rezoned land.

Uh I have three main concerns.

My first concern is that by rezoning this to mixed use, the planning commission and the town is essentially giving free reign to the developer to decide what they want to put on that land as opposed to a specific use being approved for uh zoning like it is right now.

And that's relevant uh as evident by my second point, and that is that staff's presentation is not addressed the UDC requirement 10.2.4A6, which specifically says that mixed use developments must ensure that the appearance and function of development in mixed use areas is appropriately compatible and appropriately integrated with surrounding neighbors neighborhoods.

And in this case, uh you have rural residential to the north, you know, pack a farm to the to the east, uh, a lot of low density, um, and and we don't know what we're gonna get with this mixed use.

Uh not only does staff not mention this requirement right out of the UDC, they state that the applicants development uh proposal to limit height and establish setbacks is not enforceable.

I would argue that the UDC that asks for demonstration of that functional uh appropriate compatibility and integration in surrounding neighborhoods is definitely enforceable.

So I would I would strongly recommend that any approval for a rezoning includes a demonstration of how they're gonna satisf satisfy that part of the UDC.

And the third point that I have is one that's been beat to death on the previous development, but that is traffic.

Um Bonanza today, you would notice that just where the proposed entrance is to this entire development is right over the crest of a hill, and this is a uh narrow two-lane road, and people go flying over that hill, and that's where they would see that left turning traffic into the development.

20 seconds.

Something significantly needs to be done to regulate that traffic if you're gonna have that much uh flowing in and out of that part of our neighborhood.

Um I appreciate this opportunity to address the council.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Anyone else in person signed up?

Next, I have Tim, and I'm not even going to attempt the last name.

Thank you.

Good evening.

I'm Tim Dernick.

I live at uh 3040 Cherokee Court in the uh air park.

Um I wanted to address some of the rezoning issues.

There's I'm not gonna get it all in in three in three minutes.

I now as I'm seeing this, I this wasn't part of my planned uh comments, but I'm seeing that a lot of the problems we're having is coming from sort of the the poison chalice of the comp plan uh making this an employment.

I think we're just at the south end of the thing.

Employment suddenly for some reason makes the low density residential.

I'm sorry, the the yeah, low density residential incompatible with employment.

However, that is the that's the appropriate step to go from rural residential up to that's that's an appropriate uh increase in zoning up to going up to the low density residential, which it currently is.

Uh going to mixed use and AP, especially AP that doesn't have any um uses uh as presented to the airport proper.

This is going to become what we've seen on the west side, and it's going to become uh industrial overlay, and we're going to be living next to an industrial park, as the as the residents on the west side are currently doing.

So we've seen this happen already before.

Also wanted to quickly uh address the 40-foot setback on the north side as it abuts the uh the rural residential.

The 40 foot setback is already currently as as we've talked about, there is an easement, a 40-foot easement on that uh north side that runs almost the full length.

So that's not truly a concession.

That's already an easement.

The important thing is that that easement is an active taxiway.

That's an aircraft movement easement.

By the by what we're seeing here, it's the a future developer can put a um child care center directly abutting a uh aircraft movement easement.

We want to protect that for not only for the safety concerns, obviously, and the noise complaints that we're already dealing with, but for security for the airport.

That taxiway is a direct conduit onto the uh onto the uh runway.

So we can address that with fences and setbacks and things.

But what we what we don't want to do is we don't want to have density housing right there with dogs and uh kids and stuff that are right up against that.

So there's a lot of other issues that we could do it, but I'm gonna sure I'm gonna run out of time.

Um the uh the we've sort of bifurcated the system to have AP on the north or on the west and um uh the the uh thank you yes, I'm you and both of those things instead of instead of going from north to south where the the commercial uh sl slowly gradients into thank you for your time.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate your comments.

Okay, next I have Johan Morris.

Hi, I'm Johan Morris.

Uh I live uh in the air park.

I'm also on the HOA board.

Um and I just like to repeat what what Tim has said.

First, um rural residential directly to mixed use on its face to me, doesn't make sense.

Um the easement that the aircraft easement that Tim has talked about.

Um if you've got whether it's an aircraft airplane or whether it's a helicopter going on that easement, as it's currently stipulated, it it doesn't seem like um there's enough of a buffer.

For 40 feet is for an aircraft wing or or a propeller uh or a helicopter.

Um what's gonna be on the other side?

So there are a lot of questions with with that.

Um I was kind of shocked at the pictures that were shown.

Um of the intersections and the various orientations.

It looks like a beautiful flat piece of ground.

I I invite you to take your car and go drive over there.

It's a significant hill, like you've heard in some of the testimony.

Um it's not flat at all coming off of uh going south on Bonanza or going north up the hill to bonanza.

So those are my quick comments, and I'll I'll forward some other neighborly comments uh to you guys via email.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, I do have a few people online.

So if I have anyone online that would like to speak on this agenda item, please raise your hand and I can bring you into the meeting.

And I have no hands raised.

Okay.

So thank you all for your comments.

The time is now 8.29.

Uh would the applicant or staff like to make any comments based on those comments?

Yeah, you have to.

Okay.

So just had a few thoughts from the public comment that we just heard.

First, talking about bonanza.

The residents here know it so well.

That is a hill.

The picture does look flat.

It's not.

It it's a it's a good hill.

And so if and when you know designated uses are identified for this site, a preliminary plat with a final TIA and site plan are going to have to address where appropriate access can be made on both Bonanza and Highway 7.

Um the um Mr.

Dernick had talked about the easement and you know valid concerns about having children get into the way of aircraft.

That is really really important that it's going to have to be addressed at time of site plan, specifically with fencing and other things.

And I appreciated the last person who spoke, um indicating that that 40 foot width is really the width of the wings and the and the uh the propellers.

So again, at time of site plan, it's gonna be important to look at you know, potentially larger buffers off of that and assuring that public health and safety is taken care of.

So and I I would just like to add to for uh on Mr.

Bednar's comment of just having a free reign on any mixed uses.

We still have to follow the public procedures for um for platd for site plans to be able to do any use, right?

We're coming back to you again, we're coming back to city council as well.

So it's not a free reign.

Um we would have to prove up those uses and prove up the compatibility and everything else for the code.

And I think one little thing I want to add is on those plat notes.

Um despite those not being uh enforceable by the town at this point, we would we would commit at um the dias tonight to abide by those those requirements and um additional plat notes that were added.

Okay, thank you.

You have anything, Chris or I don't at the moment, unless there's something specific you'd like me to address.

No, yeah.

That's fair.

Um we'll move to commissioner questions.

Let's start with two as we usually do.

Uh Commissioner Dreckman, you want to start?

Sure.

Um, Chris, I have a question for you.

When you guys were doing the comp plan, was there any feedback, or can you talk through the decision to go from this like rural residential to straight to employment?

Like, or how the town kind of came to that decision.

Yeah, I can I can or you can do that.

Sorry.

Yep, sorry.

Um as the applicant had pointed out, it was previously mixed use, not uh a residential use.

Um so the employment was after consultation um with our um economic development team, the airport advisory board, uh property owners to um recognize that that is a significant uh commercial corridor that um could handle sort of those more employment type uses.

Okay, but also you know, some residential that could um buffer right, okay.

That makes sense.

Um and then I guess one more question for Chris.

You said that I know that they looked into traffic, which is preemptive because there's no site plan in place, but you just said there was a lot of outstanding questions from the town.

Is that just meaning like when if and when a site plan came forward that there would be a lot of questions, or like I just think you said there were outstanding questions, so can you elaborate on that?

Yeah, so they did provide a uh traffic study analysis, and obviously without having specific uses, there's some assumptions and things.

So um looking to the comments that uh Nick had made, he had provided all of these uh as advisory in terms of like things we would expect once site plans and plating comes forward.

So it's not that we have like major fundamental concerns with the study, but we do have concerns with some of the things in it, and we'd like to see um make sure that it's uh brought more up to speed.

Um Nick's comments are in the packet, but in general, there's a lot of technical stuff, but sort of how you look at uh the numbers.

Um we'd like some look at that.

Um we talked about uh he'd mentioned um uh any kind of accesses to highway seven shouldn't be presumed in the study until they've been fully vetted through CDOT, uh adjusting uh the peak hours based on some of the formulas that he's looking at for best practices.

Um things like that.

I I could give more details, but that's broadly kind of what we're looking at.

So I don't want to paint the picture that we were rejecting the traffic study.

I I just like any development, we always have a lot of comments on stuff.

So it makes sense.

I was just okay.

Yep, good.

Okay, Mr.

Bam.

Uh on the different uses, we have respectively maybe three for AP and one for CM or CMU also.

Uh for the uses, we'd have three for both AP and CMU.

I'm not sure I understand.

There's three uh parcels, tracks A, B, and C.

B and C are proposed for CMU.

Tract A would be for the AP.

Were you talking about the square footages?

Sorry.

No, the permitted uses.

All of those uses would be allowed.

Oh, yes, with straight zoning, anything that's listed underneath uh a zoning category could potentially be allowed in the zoning.

Okay.

Right.

Um, obviously that's a very broad statement.

I mean, there's a lot of things we'll have to consider through site planning and platting, terms of uh requirements that we have for those uses.

Um I think Heidi outlined some of the restrictions because of the uh airport heights things.

So those are all gonna contribute towards um what they can and can't do in that location.

Uh and clearly there's an existing easement for the taxiway.

Just want to recognize that that's adequately depicted on the uh minor subdivision for the tracks.

Um they can't impede that in any way.

That answer your question, or is there more you need?

No, of course it did.

Okay.

Oh, that was all three.

Okay.

Um I guess related to that, is there a reason why the CMU is split into two separate parcels of this?

Um I'm gonna look to Heidi for that.

I I took this project over for another planner who had left the town.

I I don't know that answer.

Heidi, do you know?

I don't, I'm sorry.

I probably should have anticipated that.

Yeah, so it's just looking ahead to a future preliminary plat and what the potential split out would be for more like um medical office uses and commercial uses that are gonna front highway seven versus likely a residential use towards the back of the property.

So now the site will still have to go through a preliminary plot, so that will wipe out the minor subdivision, but it's it's just anticipating that kind of uh split on the site.

That's a good point.

I mean, these are broad tracks, so thanks for sharing that.

So any subdivision, you know, how subdivisions break down into small and smaller lots, you'd anticipate pad sites or if they're proposing any kind of multifamily, it get broken down further.

The reason I ask is uh given some of the concerns maybe along the northern edge there along the easement for the taxiway.

Um if it were possible to not just have straight zoning allowances and conditioned allowances instead.

So that's not something we could consider with a rezoning request, uh putting conditions on that.

I mean, they they can make uh commitments to that.

We would expect those to be honored.

If they wanted to do something like your proposing, um we'd you'd probably have to take a step back and then adjust the request.

Like if you're talking about like a planned unit development or that's why I bring it up.

Is if if this is if it was determined that maybe uh treating those two parcels somewhat differently in terms of potential uses because of potential issues with the adjacent property, if this is the appropriate time, or if that is something that's gonna come up in the preliminary plat.

Um because from what my understanding is once if we approve straight zoning, it's right.

Well, there are some safeguards, I guess, in play.

One of which was the um, sorry, I gotta look back at my notes.

Mr.

Bedmer referenced UDC uh 1024 A6.

Those are not uh findings that you review or findings of fact that you review the rezoning request against.

But what those are are broad sort of descriptions of our zone districts and broad sort of expectations of how those would develop.

Um I was trying to look at that one again.

I think it had to do with surrounding uses.

Here, let me find it.

Again, 10 2 4 or 10 2 4.

Um thanks for bearing with me here for a second.

Yeah, it just kind of talks about compatibility with that.

So when you look at those broad guidelines, those are the things that we're gonna expect to see as the project developments is to incorporate those.

We're gonna ask them to address some of those concerns and whatever development they bring forth to show how they're gonna meet these requirements.

I mean, and I I don't um I I'm assuming everybody is is is hearing the comments and they were understanding what the concerns are, it's uh more I would hate to lose the opportunity to maybe need to condition some of this.

I'm not sure that this is as strict a condition as we had in other hearings where um you know it was right on on top of another property.

But true, it's not as strict, I agree.

And so it it's it's the only reason I bring it up is just as a to acknowledge the concerns there and if it's something that we can work towards with the preliminary plat and plots and site plan development as you go forward.

Definitely be expectations on our ends.

Okay.

And Commissioner Burns, I might add as well.

Um, as I mentioned too, um, again, coming back with the site plan, we were we'd be subject to all the conditions of the code and to meet those conditions, and so a big part of that would be you know, we really see retail along the front edge of highway seven visibility is critical.

Um there would be a transition of use to the north.

Um, and I think that you know, knowing bonanza is not a through street, it is it ends in air park as a dead end.

Um so from a traffic standpoint, sort of I guess ends, you know, you're not gonna put an intense use on that street further, you know, further into the north as it at butts or the air park residents.

Correct.

Um from a planning standpoint, all with all you know, practicality, we would transition uses to the north.

So you would start to see things stepping down from an intensity standpoint.

And and I I appreciate that because I think that that is what hopefully everybody expects in in terms of working with the community towards the final site plan.

It's the concern that well, if it's not restricted, well, we can turn around and we can still do this kind of thing despite what people are saying or concerned about.

You know, that that's what the concern is.

Yeah, and I think we'd have to hold up the measurement of compatibility at that point if we were trying to do something that was really flies in the face of you know, an a rural residential um from a planning standpoint.

We don't know what those uses are yet, but obviously we'd come back and we'd have to prove that prove that out to not only you but the residents.

I'm sure there would be many more meetings and discussions and staff as well.

So again, ongoing.

No, we would not do that.

That was that loud.

We heard we did hear that.

Right.

And so, and I and I guess my other kind of question is really more of a comment.

Um, just regarding the slide uh in the presentation that was talked about like the building heights because I know there's concern that someone can come in here.

It it noted that there's not restricted by FAA specifically, but the CMU designation does limit it to three stories.

So it's 45 feet, I think.

So we would be limited by the the UDC maxim height, just not the FAA for flight path coming in.

Right, and then we would further restrict that and as it's closer to the property to 40 feet, so you're even stepping down.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I guess there's a reason I'm not a traffic engineer because um I thought there was a good point about bonanza and that hill.

I I don't know how you engineer that road to get in and out of a business um area without using highway seven, but I know that that will come out later.

So that was more just a comment.

Um I want to talk about the residential component of this.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding the potential for how much residential can go in there with this mixed use.

You mean in terms of square footages or um I haven't done the exact math, but the way it works out in terms of mixed use areas that you take the total area, 25% of the gross floor area for your primary uses have to be occupied by that use.

So you have to have at least those numbers for the two uses in each area.

Um there would be residential in both of the zoning code.

One of the primary uses must be residential.

Okay.

And then I think I was looking at this.

Some of the staff recommendations.

I think I was looking at the history of this property, which was annexed back in 2012.

And at that time, did I see where there was the ability to have 500?

So there's a couple things there.

Um if you look through the history, yes, I didn't maybe I'm anticipating some questions, but uh it had been rezoned to high density residential at one point um back in 2012.

I think there's a lot of history there.

I wasn't around for that one, but I've heard a little bit.

I think there's a lot of opposition at that time.

Uh there wasn't a lot of huge development or the the amount of intensity or commercial that we have now.

Um so I just I think the time wasn't right.

And um who I don't know who was developing at the time, but decided that wasn't going to work out for them.

Uh in 2014, it eventually went to low density residential.

They thought probably maybe that would stick better, and proposed a um uh subdivision for that for 165 single family lots.

I don't know why this occurred, but the application was withdrawn.

I think I don't know if it maybe had to do with I don't know if there was some conflicts with the airport or I don't know if the applicants have any history on that, but um the decision was made to withdraw that one.

So um that's kind of where it sat um till now.

And is the high density is that what would have allowed the sorry I didn't hear you.

The high density would that is that what would have allowed the 500 units?

Well, the zoning would have um the annexation agreement would allow up to that number, um sort of what the town agreed with the developer at that time.

Um so the high density at that time, I guess that was probably what they were shooting for.

Okay.

Um, but it's no longer zoned high density as we've outlined.

It got rezone.

Um so per zone, you couldn't do that many, but in order to honor the annexation agreement, it would need to be rezoned to hit that five.

Well, I don't I'm not sure how many they would be proposing at this point.

I haven't seen, but uh, if they're doing that.

Um does that answer your question?

I think so.

Okay.

I think that's it for now.

Okay.

Commissioner Solch.

Okay, I'm gonna ask if the applicant would like to talk about why the application from 2015-2016 was withdrawn.

I can't see if I can I can address that.

Please yeah, that's that's the conflict with the FAA that we were referencing earlier in the presentation and the genesis of why we're proposing the AP zoning.

Okay.

Um for staff or for the applicant, uh, do we know exactly where EIK's avigation easement is?

Um do you know?

You you had the map open.

Maybe you could share that and talk to that question.

Um, sorry, hang on.

I'll move it over for you.

I thought maybe ours was at the bottom.

Nope, no, I've got it.

Oh, it's the wrong one.

There we go.

And maybe you could address Commissioner Salvich's question.

I'm sorry, Commissioner.

Could you repeat the question?

The avigation easements for the airport where it is restrictive of any development or within proximity of development, and basically requires FAA uh review.

Okay, so you're talking about this slide, correct?

Uh the part 77 restrictions on the airport, not the avigation easement on the north side of the property.

Yes.

I think it's the next slide.

Yeah.

Oh, I apologize.

Maybe I misunderstood what you're asking.

I thought we were looking for uh those height restrictions.

Were you referencing the uh air the airplane access taxiways?

Uh the first with the avigation easement.

So that's the airspace.

That's the okay.

So that's this exhibit.

This one, right?

Yeah.

Okay.

Oh, wait a minute.

Okay, now I'm confused.

That one?

We have we have two different things I'm gonna get into.

So avigation easement first.

Okay, so that goes back to the previous slide, navigation easement.

The next slide.

Sorry, yeah.

Okay.

That has I can try.

Yes, I can do that.

That gives express rights to the to the residents of the air park.

So that that easement can't be removed, it can't be replaced.

It will be um when this comes in for uh preliminary plat, it will be there as well.

And then as this goes through the process of site plans, you know, it'll need to look at making sure that all of the safety concerns are addressed.

Okay, so just clarify as of right now, there is a avigation easement on the property.

However, um that doesn't mean that that is the only amount of land that is going to um not be built on there could be additional buffer that is required at a later date or that is planned because it is in close proximity of a navigation easement, and we want to make sure that we're not having any issues with that.

I think I understand now.

Um sorry for my confusion.

Yes, that we they can't change the easement that's already existing, it's recorded by um, so they can't impede that or change that, not without permissions.

Um so that's restrictive.

They've made some commitments in terms of setbacks for commercial height and setbacks for residential, and then of course anything on the previous slide with the colors where FAA may limit heights, would have a uh limiting factor on development.

Okay.

So now into the second part.

So um within proximity of flight patterns um within proximity of um on airport premises.

Um question is if we are now having this as airport zoned, does that force FAA review of this development at a later date?

Well, we would typically always send it that way.

We send it to the airport manager, yeah.

They're in the airport air influence zone and they're referred to the FAA, any any project within that area.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, didn't mean that direct.

And if I understand in 2015-2016, it was the proximity of residential to the flight patterns.

Um that was the major concern and resulted in one of the only times that I've ever seen this happen.

A um a determination and recommendation of denial, and shortly thereafter, that's when the application ended back in 2015-2016.

That's correct.

It was and it was sorry, it was withdrawn from the applicant at that time, so that removed it from any further consideration.

Okay, it had moved through the planning commission, if I understand.

Yes, they were the ones who did the uh resolution of denial recommendation for denial, and shortly thereafter, that's when it got polled before it got uh um board of trustees.

Not 100% sure on that.

I could check, but I I was reading some of it earlier that seems right.

I would want to double check.

I can try to do that.

All right, I know I'm at two questions, so I'm okay.

Um so I had a traffic question, which in the staff report it said there wasn't going to be access then to seven, and now I understand there is so um apologies.

I wasn't one discussed per se at this high level, but I'll I'll update that.

Okay, and and we doesn't matter, and we did switch planners mid, so we want to go easy on on Chris.

Please thank you.

Access control plan.

Yes, so my question is where was the access point?

They talk about drive C service to drive, which doesn't exist at this point.

I'm guessing they probably had some preliminary ones in the traffic study.

I'll look over to Yeah, I saw it in the traffic study, but I couldn't figure out where it was.

The access on highway seven, and uh yeah, so it's towards the western portion of the site.

All right, and just a comment.

You had mentioned that Banan's is not really a through street.

I used to live in the west portion of Vista Ridge, and it definitely was a through street that people use that to get into Vista Ridge, just to let you know.

Oh, like the back door, yeah.

Okay, so I don't think it's a big deal.

Um, but I'm very familiar with the hill and stuff because I used to go that way.

Okay, I guess we should clarify there's not an official town right-of-way that would facilitate that.

No, it's but it does give you access to the could be a social access.

Yeah.

If you're going west or coming from the west, that's the easiest way to get in and out of that subdivision.

So the next question was about excavation and this is gonna seem weird, but around TH6, which I assume was test hole six, it talked about some need based on the soil analysis to maybe do over excavation there or something.

Oh yeah, that's very common.

There's yeah, a lot of expansive soils that occur.

I think this ridges definitely had some issues with that.

Uh uh, it's a way to sort of look at how they do the soil to make it suitable for development and try to limit the swell potential.

Yeah, and so um I was wondering if you had any concerns.

Yeah, from our standpoint, no, that's very common in the soils, not just in the town of Uri, but all the front range that generally overacts is needed to make the soil structural.

So it's kind of our common practice here.

We would review.

Sorry, it didn't mean that.

One of the things I ran into, it turns out that I had a natural radon system because there was space underneath the house.

And so anyway, so there are actually some good things come out of it, surprisingly.

But anyway, we'll do a referral to Colorado geologic survey through all the traffications for plating uh to look at those soil analysis and studies.

They always often have general recommendations for that that often turn into notes that they have to abide by for CDs and construction.

Yeah, and then one quick comment, which I know we we've heard before was that this is zoning versus site plan, and so just let people know there's a difference in the requirements that we have to follow based on that, and so uh a lot of the concerns that were raised today will come up in the site plan, and there are at least two other opportunities for community involvement.

So yes, and for site plans specifically, there's a couple different versions.

There's administrative reviews based on square footage, uh, large developments like multi-family will always do a comprehensive site plan that is reviewed by the planning commission.

So did you have anything else?

No, I think I didn't know.

Commissioner Bam?

No.

Um I did have one question.

The uh in light of uh potentially with these commercial abuses and with multifamily residential.

Is there a RTD stop close to this?

I just curious.

Oh gosh, we've talked about a lot of that with uh access along Highway 7.

Um is there a stop there?

I I think there's some plan stops, and I think they were doing things with um like the call ahead writing.

Kelly did do you know like the specifics?

I'm answering very broadly here.

I don't at this point, and my computer died, so I can't do anything else.

I know that the BRT expansion I thought might be that might be a good opportunity for something because there's not a lot until you get to up the hill, really.

I think there was some talk for further to the east about a stop in Vista Ridge or along Vista Ridge.

Um, but I don't know where that's at.

Closer to Mountain View or something.

Yeah, yeah, closer to that.

We'll commit to double checking with transportation and maybe adding a few lurbs about that in the update for town council.

I think that would be beneficial for commercial and especially residential for looking at it.

You know, for higher density.

Yes.

That's all I have.

Do you think that's going to be this?

Yes.

Um my question, my next question was about that easement, and we talked about potentially that 40 foot buffer.

Um that 40 foot buffer would be in addition.

Like that you're not using that as the 40 foot buffer.

The restriction we put was 40 foot off the property line.

So when we get to a site plan with what we heard from the community today, we'd need to look at um increasing that.

Okay.

Uh those commitments are definitely ones that the developer is making, but just a clarification.

It looked like weren't you doing 100 foot for commercial?

No, it's commercial, right?

100 foot commercial setback.

Right.

If there were any commercial.

And then I'm hoping we're going to ask more questions about residential in the airspace.

So I think I might have more questions, but I'll see if he expands on his questions.

Okay, Commissioner Sulch.

I'll I'll leave those questions for you if you want to come back to that.

Um there was a um there was a comment that uh staff had made earlier.

It was uh saying that transportation uh specific transportation items needed to be addressed in the sighting um site plan process.

Um I see that in the third submittal referral notes, it appears there was a discrepancy or difference of opinion in terms of how exactly trip generations were determined.

Um is that what you were referring to, or are there specific items?

I was trying to keep it high level, I'm not a traffic engineer, so it kind of fumbled through that.

But yes, he referenced a what was the some sort of curve something formula that was maybe a little bit difference of opinion on how it was originally proposed versus how we would want to see it.

So yes.

Okay.

Um for the applicant, uh, since the initial traffic impact study would be applicable to the changes for this zoning um in terms of trip generation.

Um there were comments made about um the method in which the trip generation, the forecasted trips to be generated from this um was about half of what was anticipated or forecasted by the individual providing the referral comments.

Um have we come to terms?

Have we addressed this?

How exactly do we understand what the trip generation is because the initial impact the traffic impact study is a basis for our consideration here?

And if there is a concern about how exactly the forecasted trips were generated, how they were actually calculated, um, obviously that impacts no pun intended impacts our decision potentially.

So again, wanted to give you the moment to say your your piece on what exactly happened and how we're resolving the discrepancy.

Yes, I and I called it the wrong thing.

It was a fitted curve equation.

So that's what I was trying to come up with.

So doing a traffic impact study on rezoning without actual identified uses so we can really do trip generation.

We had to make assumptions, right?

And so that was uh iterative process with the town's engineers to get to a method of assumptions that was um that we could all agree upon and get to this point where staff is recommending approval.

Now if and when a preliminary plot and a site plan come in and real uses are identified, then that'll be able to narrow in and focus and have the numbers be real because at this point in time they're assumptions of what could be and not what will be typically that's why we have a concept plan as part of this so we can understand what the idea is behind it.

Um obviously there's still things to move around, but um, so if I understand this correctly, um we don't know what we don't know, but by preliminary plat, if that time does come, we would obviously have more detailed requirements as per our code as well as as this gets fleshed out where we understand exactly what this is gonna look like, what is needed in certain specific areas, roundabouts, signal warrants, whatever it might be.

Absolutely okay.

Um yeah, 100%.

Um I I would note that Nick's comments do say that like um their advisory at this point.

I yes, they're it when you read them, it seems like we're discreeting.

I guess we are a little bit.

We think the numbers will be a little bit higher.

So we'll talk about that when they come in with those uh future applications.

But the point of this is when that study comes in.

Here's kind of the guidelines we are expecting to see when it comes in, so that it doesn't have to potentially go through a bunch of reviews on that.

Okay.

Um and I believe the applicant had said earlier um that CDOT has preliminary access proposed via highway seven.

So that is uh direct access.

I'm assuming it's um gonna be um partial motion um into the property off of highway seven um is not related to the proposed or upcoming um moving of the uh airport drive having the full access uh fully signalized intersection that has it's not related to that is that correct I believe that's correct.

It is fully related to CDOT's um access control plan and you are correct it is limited movement.

Yeah, I would expect that would be right in right out.

I wouldn't think you'd ever see full movement.

That would be a surprise.

Correct.

Okay.

All right, I will pause there and turn it back to the chair.

Vice chair.

Whatever.

Uh acting chair.

Did you end up with any other questions?

Um, I think I want to go back to um whatever the comments were about the FFA and residential in there before, and that was what ultimately led to a denial.

So I'm trying to figure out how this how this is different than what it was back then, what's changed?

Sure.

So the current zoning has residential all the way up to that boundary that we showed in that exhibit.

And now it does not.

It has that buffer using the AP.

And that's why we selected that zone code.

Okay.

Anybody else have anything else?

No.

Okay, if not the time is now 9.06, and I'm closing the public hearing and into commissioner deliberations or open the floor.

Anybody want to start?

Well, sure.

Um there um first off, thank you to staff, and thank you to the applicant um for answering our questions.

Sometimes it feels like we're grilling you, I'm sure.

Um this is a unique property here in town.

Um a vacant property that falls to the idea of what this is supposed to be in terms of this zoning classification in terms of the community of mixed use.

It's supposed to be these uh barren areas of land that are in high traffic corridors.

Um it does fit that.

However, we do obviously have the current residential um homes on the north side.

So this is gonna be something that whatever does potentially come about, it has to fit in and it has to work with the the neighbors to the north.

Um previously been uh the liaison to the airport economic development advisory board.

Um I know that before this application even came about, there was some uh conversation about this, and they even believe that moving to airport on that west side was beneficial for the economic development for the airport as well.

Um it does provide the ability to have these aviation related needs that that airport has facilitated within this property.

Um I'm not a hundred percent positive, but I think this may be within the current airport URA or just outside of it.

Um so that would be something I recommend staff looking into for uh the next next meeting that might come about.

This but I do feel that this could work.

It isn't a blank um, it isn't a blank zoning classification that we're doing on this.

This is very different than say one of the other applications that we saw where it was a PD and literally they wanted everything under the sun.

Um this is straight zoning, um, it works a lot differently than than those.

Um there is some ambiguity.

There is a laundry list of these different items of what they can or cannot actually be permitted, what is special review use, et cetera.

But in terms of the idea of commer of community mixed use, this property does fit those classifications in terms of what the purpose is for that zoning class, and especially that airport zoning does fit because obviously it is the only place you could really have an airport zoning in the town.

Um except for the actual land that the town owns.

So I do see a lot more involvement with the neighbors coming.

Um I would highly recommend additional above and beyond the neighborhood meetings.

Yes, you are required to have one prior to coming before the planning commission within you know 90 days of coming before the planning commission, but I would highly recommend um having more communications with the airport uh owners over there with the airport hoa.

Um, and I've heard that uh there isn't an hoa, but no, there is an HOA.

Um, so there uh they're they will be able to provide you a lot of beneficial feedback.

Um so I thank you both again for coming before us, um, and I look forward to seeing what becomes of this.

Anyone else have comments?

Um I was gonna uh I just want to say I agree with what Commissioner Salwich has mentioned, and this is um as we're getting more into infill type of projects uh like this, as opposed to just big open development.

I like the last one, unfortunately.

That's it's becoming less uh common and in these infill projects are or more we're seeing that we're having to deal with, especially the existing communities around us.

And so um, like I said, I agree with what Commissioner Sowich said.

We we need to work with this.

I think what's scary about this is the laundry list of things that are permitted without hearing, without application, um, and so that's where it's gonna be crucial for um you know developers and the town to to work with the residents to make sure that these are acceptable uses for everyone.

Um, but I will say, you know, along highway seven, this is this is really an appropriate use of more commercial uses and low density residential in my mind.

So just add to that the consideration of highest and best use of that property, it does fall in line with that.

So if we can balance the neighbors to the north and how the uses agree with each other as a density builds, it's probably the best effort.

Um just echoing what my other um commission members have said that I sympathize with the residents and I obviously don't live in the neighborhood, but I can understand the frustrations that you're feeling.

But our job today is to see if it aligns with the comprehensive plan the town has in place.

So, you know, like regardless of maybe personal feeling or if we live there, um you know, the cop plan says something the towns develop the comp plan.

That's what we're looking at today.

And I'm if it does go forward, I think the site plan meeting will be um extensive, and you know, we'll ask even more questions, and so there are more opportunities, you know, for that.

Thank you.

And following through with that, there is the rezoning users guide that ERIA has.

And in there, there's one line for the approval criteria, which is that it follows the UDC section 1075 B3.

And one of the big things in there is what we were talking about, uh, and what was brought up in the public comment that uh it does have to be generally consistent with what's going on now.

And so for zoning, I'm not sure there's anything the applicant that's in the applicant that contradicts what they have to follow.

I think for site plan, as everyone else has said it's gonna be critical.

And I want to thank the applicant because you have been having extensive conversations with the residents, and uh I'm expecting that to be continued.

So and there will be plenty of other opportunities here.

All right.

Um so I'm gonna say I think we've had enough deliberation.

So does somebody want to make a motion?

Thank you.

Motion to approve resolution number P 26-06.

A resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending approval of the rezoning of the Sierra Vista property to community mixed use CMU and Airport AP.

Do we have a second?

Second.

Does anybody want a roll call vote?

Hearing none, let's do a voice vote.

All in favor of the approval say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Okay, the motion carries.

Um I want to thank everybody who is here.

And there will be a lot more work as part of this.

So close the public hearing now.

Oh well, sorry, been closed.

Um, so it's now 916.

We've concluded general business.

Move to staff reports.

Does staff have anything?

Yes, just one item.

Um, we've been working with the clerk's office.

Um as you're probably aware, they've been recruiting for a lot of the advisory boards, including public commission, and um they're working with uh CERSA to um have some training on site, and that's gonna be open to you all as well.

Um May 4th at 6 p.m.

here.

Um it will be um recorded if you can't make it, um, but there will be um towards the end a quasi-judicial portion specific for planning commission and the board of adjustment and appeals, so it would be handy to at least you know view that if you can't make it to the meeting.

Uh the clerk's office will be sending out invitations to that in a few weeks.

Okay, thank you.

Anything else?

That's it.

Okay.

Um the time is now 917.

Uh are there any commissioner reports or discussion?

Um quick question for staff.

Uh how how does it look for the next meeting?

Is it looking like we're gonna hold our meeting or cancel an events?

I believe we have an item.

Hold on.

Sorry.

I have the advanced agenda right here.

Yeah, we have um oops.

Um, some changes to comply with some state law regarding non non-functional TERF.

So exciting stuff.

Non-functional TRF.

Non-functional TERF, yes.

This is not what to do.

We we can talk about it on May 6.

Oh, glad it's you guys talk about but I think the question was the question about May 6th or April 15th.

Oh, I'm sorry.

I was looking at April 5th, yes, April.

So the one thing that's on preliminary or yeah, the advanced agenda was UDC change for code enforcement.

Sorry, yes.

And I will be out, so I will send email about that.

Thank you.

Um, we do have a meeting April 15th, yes.

Okay, all right, May 6th.

That includes everything on the agenda, unless I missed somebody.

Motion to adjourn.

Motion second.

All right, I thank you all very much.