Just confirming everybody can hear me.

Thumbs up if you can.

Yep.

Thank you.

Good evening and welcome to the May twentieth, twenty twenty-six regular meeting of the town of Erie Planning Commission.

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

Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

Commissioner Booth.

Here.

Commissioner Lee.

Here.

Commissioner Drakman.

Here.

Commissioner Salish.

Live from Zoom.

Commissioner Schatz.

Here.

Vice Chair Brodus.

Here.

Chair Hempill.

Here.

We have a quorum.

Thank you.

We have an agenda before us this evening.

Does staff have any changes?

No changes.

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

Motion.

Second.

Booth and Druckman.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Heard Commissioner Solish in there.

The motion passes unanimously.

Do we have any changes?

Motion.

Second.

We'll go with uh leaf on the second booth on the motion.

Uh motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

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

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

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

Okay.

Uh based on the agenda, we're hoping to be out of here by 8 45.

So our first item is 2026 323 Robert's rules overview.

The time is now 6 32 p.m.

I'm making this presentation.

So Vice Chair Brodus will technically be the presiding officer while I sit over there, and we'll get started real soon.

This is fun.

Good evening, planning commission.

So this is Robert's rules of order for the planning commission that I threw together just to give us some an overview of procedure.

We have our two new commissioners, Commissioner Gleif and Commissioner Schatz.

So this will be kind of a new thing for everyone because this is the first I've seen this come up in this sort of uh way.

So just going over what I'll be talking about on the agenda, the our current rules, um, what are Robert's rules, why do we want to use them, going over the presiding officer, um, kind of how meetings are structured, and then we'll just give a quick look at motions and how they work generally.

So our current rules of procedure is dictated by resolution 22149.

Um it has some hints of Roberts rules in there.

Uh it kind of gives us guidelines on meeting structure.

Um I just gave a quick link.

I believe it's actually in our agenda packet as well.

Um so it's nothing too exciting.

Um, and it really just covers officers, chair, vice chair, um, that we have meetings at 6 30 on the first and third Wednesdays unless we cancel uh agenda is procedure and public comment order.

Um so it generally, like I said, follows Robert's rules.

So what are Roberts rules?

Um the latest edition was released in 2020, it's the 12th edition.

It is 800 odd pages of riveting information.

Um there's a lot of stuff that doesn't really apply to uh this board because it's designed broadly for huge groups.

So we're a group of seven, so we can get away with a lot more.

Um it doesn't need to be as formal just because there's not a generally everyone has an opportunity to speak.

Um there's also Robert's rules in brief, so that's only 200 pages, um, but there's a lot of charts in there, so it's a little bit easier to get through.

So I've referenced both of them.

I I have copies of both just to read them.

Um and then on Monday I learned from Elliot that we have Bob's rules of order, different, different Robert, uh, that's made or that was created from by an attorney in Colorado, and that covers more quasi-judicial matters that come up.

So it Robert's rules doesn't really touch on quasi-judicial stuff.

Um it just really talks about procedure.

So I found like a 30-page PDF that was easy to read, but apparently there's a bit more.

So if we ever get to adopting formal rules for ourselves, we'll definitely reference that.

So thanks for the info.

Um, so why do we want to use Roberts rules?

I just put this quote in here.

Um it's really just to make sure that a meetings are run efficiently and everyone's heard.

That's kind of the process of um making sure that this board comes to a majority opinion, and that the people who aren't in that majority are allowed to speak their mind.

So if we're all in agreement, then it's relatively straightforward.

Uh we don't really need Robert's rules when we all like the thing that's coming up, but that doesn't happen.

So uh we just need to make sure that things run smoothly.

So I like this part.

It's the to balance the rights of everyone on the board.

Um, so the majority again is the voice of the planning commission for here.

The majority is what happens.

Um the minority is also important.

It's important that uh the minority is heard, each individual is important, so each individual needs to be heard.

People who aren't able to make the meeting for whatever reason as life happens.

And making sure that we as a body are the decisions that we make as a body are agreed upon effectively.

So the presiding officer is the chair and the vice chair.

So I'm the chair, commissioner or vice chair Brodus is the vice chair currently.

We're actually voting on these at our June or their next meeting.

So that'll come up in two weeks.

So if the chair isn't present, the vice chair takes the meeting, and if neither the chair or vice chair are present, uh someone gets to be voluntold to preside over the meeting.

So typically if that happens, there'll be notice and we can sort that out, or uh we'll go from there.

But so duties of the chair, again, I'm not going to read all of these, but it's effectively to make sure that the process is uh flowing and to keep parliamentary rule happy and uh to follow our procedure.

So if there's a lawsuit for something that we do, um if we're following everything properly, uh we're kind of covered, but that gets covered in more of the the source of training that's happening June 1st.

But this the rules of procedure help us be clear, especially with our motions of what we're deciding.

Uh so election process, just want to go over this just because it's next meeting.

Uh the nominations happen from the chair or the floor, anyone can be nominated.

Um, and then we'll do a ballot vote or a roll call vote.

And what's important is that a majority is required.

So if the three people want to be chair, and the vote is split where there aren't four votes for one person, then we revote until someone gets at least four votes.

So a majority has to happen.

There'll be runoffs, people can leave as needed, but uh it's not like a plurality where most votes win, it's because the chair needs to be elected by the majority.

So that's what we get to do next meeting.

So basic meeting of the structure, basic meeting structure.

We've kind of already started.

You've seen some of this.

We have our quorum.

Uh for our body of seven, that means we need at least four members here.

Um if we have someone resign and they're not replaced, the quorum is half.

So then we'd only need three members if we have an empty seat.

Um we'll cross that bridge if we get there, but right now our quorum is four.

Uh so we go through our minutes.

Uh again, these are per Roberts rules, not quite what we do.

Um, we typically finish our business at our meetings.

Um, for us, we have our public comment tonight.

We didn't have anyone making a public comment, which is typical for planning commission, not so much town council.

Um, but for our general public comment, we have that, and then we adopt our agenda before each meeting.

So we get our agenda sent out beforehand, and the reason that I ask if anyone has any changes is because the majority is the rule of this commission.

So if four people want to add something to an agenda, then or remove something from an agenda, we can put the agenda to a vote.

Say I move to to strike the the item number, and then we'll take a vote, and if it passes, we won't discuss that that night.

So that doesn't often come up, but um, our agenda is a motion that happens.

Um as you can see, we kind of move through it because typically our agendas are pretty straightforward, and we can uh go through them or bring them up beforehand.

So and then at the end we have our planning commissioner reports, and that's just kind of an open forum for each person to talk about something that's not necessarily related.

Um for example, at the last meeting I talked about the the town fair, so I just wanted to put this table of definitions.

Um there's an alphabetical order here.

So appeal as the chair, I'm kind of the parliamentarian, which means that I make sure we're following the rules per my understanding.

I am only human, so if I make a mistake or you believe I make a mistake, uh you can appeal my decision.

If the majority in the um that are present uh agree with that motion, then we'll go with that.

So I'm not king as chair, I'm just the one who gets to talk the most.

So the main motion, that's typically what we talk about when we're doing any work here.

So that's the primary motion of for tonight.

We have a public hearing and a code, those would be the main motions.

Um, like I said, the majority, it's greater than 50%, not greater than or equal to.

So it's important to know the distinction.

So if we were had an empty seat and down to six people, you'd still need four votes for a majority.

Umbe I misspoke about quorum.

So we'll cross that bridge if we need to.

Uh previous question, that's effectively closing debate and calling the vote.

So if it gets too rowdy, um or we're not really getting anywhere, you can call the previous question.

Um, and that we take a vote.

Uh, I believe it's two-thirds.

I have it referenced in here, but if two-thirds of the commission thinks it's time to just take the vote, we've had enough debate, then we take the vote.

Uh a privileged motion is something that's not really related to business.

Um, according to Robert's rules, adjournment is a privileged motion.

Um, it's listed in the detail page, but you can bring up a privileged motion uh at any time.

Um the question is really just the formal way of staying the thing that we're debating.

And the subsidiary motion is um effectively a motion after within the other motion.

I don't have a great example, but you might get there.

I'm not gonna go through this list, but it really talks about the the type of motion.

Um, if you can debate it.

So, like the main motion we obviously debate.

Um, but if we like if someone makes a motion to recess, we're not gonna have a debate if we should take a five-minute break.

We're just gonna take the vote and then take a recess or not.

So if I make a again on recess, if we amend, be like I move to recess for 15 minutes, and then someone amend to five minutes, then we can do that sort of thing.

That's what amend means.

Um, and then the how the vote works is a majority or two-thirds.

So again, to close the debate is two-thirds because a strong, effectively supermajority of the commission has determined that we're ready to take a vote.

Whereas um, like the motion to adjourn, if three people still want to hang out here for a while, but uh four people don't, then we're gonna leave.

So that that's kind of how that works.

Um and then the the motion order.

So this talks about uh Robert's rules.

I believe it's slightly different in Bob's rules in my quick review of this, but um the the privileged motion, you can see that adjournment is one of the the highest privilege motions here.

That just means that we can really end the meeting if so needed.

I mean if there's like a tornado coming by, we can adjourn the meeting in the middle of debate, that sort of thing.

That's that's the point of adjournment being such a high um privilege.

And as you can see down at the very bottom, the main motion again is the thing we're debating.

So things happen as the motion progresses.

So motion process, um a member requests to make a motion, and then the chair recognizes that member.

So part of parliamentary procedure is that people don't speak unless they've been recognized.

So to make a motion, you need to be recognized.

To make a second, you don't need to be recognized.

Um it just keeps things uh keeps people from talking over each other.

So when another commissioner has the floor, uh we respect their time.

And if they start going over time, that's the chair's role is to reign them back in and make sure that the meeting progresses.

Um that's why we recognize a member.

So when the member is recognized, you make the motion.

We've used the words.

I printed it out now, so um we can see the script.

Per Robert's rules, or I guess we get the second.

Um again, no one needs to be recognized to make a second.

Uh, you just say second.

Uh at least for staff here, it's helpful if you say your name or last name.

That helps with the minutes of who's making motions in seconds.

Um, and then per Robert's rule, it says the chair states the question.

So the way that works is someone would make a motion, uh, motion to approve the resolution and then all the words, second, and then the chair should repeat that exactly.

That's a little cumbersome because we do have really uh well-defined motions.

So I think in this for efficiency, it's been, I think, pretty clear.

If it's not clear what you're voting on, ask.

You don't want to vote yes or no to something that you're not sure what you're voting on.

And that's always acceptable to ask for the the floor to clarify what we're voting on.

Uh sometimes that comes up with a motion to reject.

So if we want to reject something, and it's a little weird because if you vote no on a motion to reject, it's not quite accepting because there could be another motion, but it's kind of a double negative.

So if you're not sure, it's always appropriate to clarify what you're voting on.

Um then the chair after the the question, we're supposed to have debate again.

We typically debate beforehand.

I think even in Bob's rules in the quick thing, it says that debate can happen before the motion, and that helps if we want any amendments on the motion.

So having a debate before the motion helps a really clean motion that we create.

Um so if we want to amend something by I think uh I'm thinking in the past we added the definition to a code change.

So we debated that.

Um kind of had consensus that it was gonna pass.

So it was the motion was to approve with the the amendment, read the motion and the amendment.

So then it's very clear of what we're voting on.

Um so then the question is when we go to vote.

Um we can do roll call votes.

Anyone can request a roll call vote.

Um I didn't ask for that for the agenda, but I will for all the others.

Um by charter, uh you have to do a roll call vote for budgetary stuff, which we typically don't see here.

So we can do voice votes for pretty much everything we do.

Um I might call roll of call vote, but again, if someone wants to request a roll call vote, it takes an extra minute.

It's not too bad.

And then we announce the result, so it's clear for the the minutes of what the result was.

If, for example, we do a voice vote and there's gonna be three no's and four yeses, and I hear four yeses, but we're not sure.

We can revote.

We can say I there's a formal phrase, I forget what it is, but um we can say, can we request uh a roll call vote to make sure we get it right?

So again, we want to make sure that it's clear what we're voting on and how we vote.

Um motion process is I'd like to make a motion.

The chair would say would recognize that member, and then I move to approve the language of the resolution.

We get a second from the crowd, and then there's a motion and a second, and then we call the vote.

So that's my presentation.

Any questions from anybody?

Sure.

I'm not sure, Mr.

Chair, whether I'm asking Mr.

Chair, Mr.

Chair.

Uh but are we saying that there is no debate after the motion is stated?

Typically in the way we have done this, typically no.

Um, we can.

Um actually, I believe in my script I do have the debate available after the motion is stated, but just with the way we've uh worked.

Um we sometimes don't have debate after the motion is called.

But we but it's not disallowed.

It's not disallowed.

Okay, yeah, thank you.

Any other questions?

I don't have a question, but I have a comment.

Um I just noticed on the motion to adjourn, there is no debate allowed on that.

I just wanted to point that out.

And that is one of the one of the only uh motions that can be made with out of quorum.

So if someone leaves in the middle, you're not stuck.

Yeah.

No, that's uh good call.

So again, it's like a motion to adjourn, but then we take the vote, and if it fails, then if you keep calling for a motion to adjourn after it's failed, then I gavel you down.

So anything else?

Just to comment, I want to thank you for doing this.

I understand this is the first time uh the commission has had this sort of orientation, and I think it's uh a great positive step.

So thank you.

I agree.

Thank you.

Anything from space?

Sure.

How I got I got my hand up, but I don't know if we have somebody monitoring that.

Oh, yeah, go ahead.

I do see.

Um yeah, I I want to reiterate uh what was just said, uh Chair Havel, thank you for putting this together.

Uh Bob's rules of order and Robert's reserve order summarizing it into a handful of slides is not an easy task.

So thank you.

Um there was uh question that was noted about debate after a second, um, as per the resolution that was approved previously in 2022 that we follow.

Yes, debate and discussion can occur after the second uh has occurred, but um as Chair Humphill said, very rarely happens, uh, but it can.

Um, and then real quickly, I know uh Chair Hampo, you had said uh this doesn't really apply too much to quasi-judicial matters.

Um this is largely for legislative matters, um for quasi-judicial matters.

Uh, two things.

One, want to remind everybody um questions as a first round, and then deliberation as a second round um should always occur.

And then also we can uh recommend approval, approve with conditions or denial.

Those are the only three when it comes to quasijudicial matters.

Those are the only options that we have regarding items.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, that's it.

I'll go take my roll back in the center.

Good work, Bob.

Obviously.

Thank you for the presentation.

Yeah, I gotta keep going.

Yeah.

Our second item is 2026 332 public hearing a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommending that the town council approve the Erie Junction duplex special review use.

The time is now 6.54 p.m.

and I'm opening the public hearing.

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

Thank you.

Chris Rue, principal planner at the town of Erie.

And I'm here tonight to present the Erie Junction duplex special review use.

So this is for the planning commission recommendation on the special reviews to use the site for duplexes.

Uh the project site overall is 2.73 acres.

The existing zoning is old town residential or OTR.

Uh the existing use, they are currently vacant lots.

Here's kind of a quick overview of the development process.

Um typically you start with the annexation initial zoning, head to rezoning, preliminary plat, uh, then there's a final plat, do public improvements, um, site plans if um they're necessary, uh, and then building permits.

And I've kind of plugged the process in for this one here at the end uh because the preliminary and final plats were already approved prior to the special review use um being heard.

And so that's why we're here tonight is to uh discuss the merits on the special reviews itself.

So I'll go over the background, the proposal, and then the recommendation.

So here's the location, the subject sites northeast of County Line Road and Balcombe Street.

It's highlighted in the red on the screen in front of you.

And Balcombe Streets to the south, and county line is there on the west on the photo.

You can see that surrounding areas predominantly uh single family homes in Old Town Residential, and across the street you have uh some commercial type properties.

I'll show you that on the zoning map.

Here's some photos of the site and surrounding area.

This is uh approximately in the corner of the property looking north on county line, and the arrows pointing north there next to the site plan.

This is looking east along Balcom on the south side of the property.

And then this is looking uh east into the property from that corner there.

So here's the site zoning and surrounding area.

The property itself again is zoned old town residential.

Uh it does allow single family detached units as a permitted use.

Uh duplex or single family attached are only allowed by a special review use uh review in the OTR zone district.

When used for single family detached, it has a five-dwelling unit per acre maximum.

If it's used for multifamily, you're allowed to go up to 10 dwelling units per acre.

And then I will share the comprehensive plan designation for the site and surrounding area.

It's residential medium.

The residential medium designation allows a mix of housing types.

It could be small lot, single family, detached.

It allows duplexes, townhomes, and smaller scale type apartments.

Sometimes you hear the term garden apartments, it references in the comp plan.

Those are just lower, shorter type buildings.

The density currently for residential medium is eight to eighteen dwelling units per acre.

So if you recall, you could go up to 10 by the zoning.

The project itself comes in at 8.42 dwelling units per acre overall.

So it's well under the zoning minimum, and it's just a little bit over the minimum for the comp plan designation.

So there's a variety of comprehensive plan policies that are listed, some of which would support the project.

One of which is making sure that new development meets the plan vision and priorities.

Developing duplexes will help contribute contribute to the need for more diversity, diverse housing typologies and approved affordability within the community.

There's one that talks about locating higher density and mixed use development areas that could possibly be served by transit.

Medium density development supports the neighborhood center of historic old town and is near the Erie Town Center.

There are talks of being able to do bus stops towards town center.

So I'll go over the proposal next.

Here's the site again with a conceptual site plan that's laid out on the existing lots.

This again is for the duplex uses.

There's 10 buildings, total of 20 units.

The ones over here on the west are front loaded.

That means they have garages that are oriented towards the front of the house.

And then the 14 units here that are duplex are alley loaded, meaning they front on a street and their garages are accessed by a rear alley.

And that's what you see sort of in this middle part.

You can see garages here, then over here.

So there'll be a future architecture reviews just to make sure that all the units meet the minimum requirements for the design guidelines of the town.

But here is a artist drawing that they have provided that shows what they have in mind in terms of how these would look.

And again, these aren't final, they shouldn't be considered final.

And then here's some views of some of the models that they're proposing for the duplexes.

And this one in particular has the attached garage.

So those are these are the alley loaded garages, I'm sorry.

And then this one shows a deploy detached garage.

Like I this previous one you see is an attached garage.

I think the concept plan showed detached on some of them, but there's no prohibition from them sort of changing that up.

We would review that with their architecture reviews administrative level.

I think they were looking to maybe change some of that to some degree.

So on the screen now are the approval criteria against which the application was reviewed.

Staff found that it met all these requirements.

Some of these are generally consistent with the comp plan and applicable provisions of the UDC, being consistent with the purpose and the intent of the zone district.

It's generally consistent with any use standards set forth in the code.

It's compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale and site design and operating characteristics, and wouldn't have any outside negative effects to surrounding properties.

So obviously during construction period, there would be a little disturbance to the area, but construction sites are required to keep dust down and make sure that they try to follow similar routes when they're bringing supplies to the site.

There has to be adequate assurance of continuing maintenance have been provided.

Those have all been established through the plat review and the development agreement.

Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment are mitigated to the extent reasonable or practical.

So staff find that the application complies with the approval criteria.

We recommend that planning commission adopt the resolution recommending approval of the Erie Junction duplex special reviews to town council.

The applicant did have the required neighborhood meeting on April 16th.

Uh he had reported that four attendees uh attended that meeting.

All the appropriate notices have been met to include publishing in the paper, uh posting the site physically, and then having letters sent to adjacent property owners.

So that concludes the staff presentation uh tonight.

Happy to answer any questions.

The applicant does not have a presentation prepared, but he's obviously here and is uh he can come up.

I think he maybe wanted to share a few things.

So with that, I will conclude my report.

Yep.

Thank you, Chris.

My name is Mick Jacobs.

I live at 270 West Sycamore Lane in Lewisville, Colorado.

Uh I remember Commissioner Leaf during the first time we did this four and a half years ago.

And I I I if I I thought that that was you, maybe it's not.

I thought you were the only commissioner that was still on, but I guess not.

Okay.

Everybody's new.

Um we're here today to talk about the Erie Junction project.

This project has been completed for quite some time.

We received in August of last year our initial acceptance from the town of Erie for all of the infrastructure associated with the project.

We then ran into the inability to get financing for the project.

Um my business, my company, we are not toll brothers, we're not KB.

And um, by a show of hands, which commissioner here would rather see KB and Toll Brothers be the only builders in in Erie?

Right?

It of course no one would.

It's a rhetorical question because it's a very important question to what I'm about to talk about, which is I I would like to know if any commissioner here has not read the letter that I sent along with my application associated with this today.

So this is a very serious problem, and it involves a group and a party of people, and it involves governments and local municipalities that transition between people and that transition into different groups.

No one in the commission, not Chris, not Kelly, no one is trying to be malicious or cruel.

But the problem is that I wasn't given due process in any ethical or moral way, let alone a legal way.

And if I was KB or toll brothers, I would not be standing before you six months later trying to get this done.

This would have been done when we submitted our applications in November for a building permit.

What Chris described in his flowchart of timing, accurately describes the process, and during the preliminary plat, and at final PLT, which goes back almost three and a half to four and a half years ago, I was verbally told that we were done.

That SRU and the triplex site plan were reviewed because they were.

What we did for the Marshall Fire where I live and rebuilding for that.

We I know what we're doing with respect to entitlement.

And I did it for 20 years prior to that for corporations building cell phone towers and doing other telecommunications development like data centers on the East Coast.

And this dates back 20 years.

And that my only communication and my only point was through Ms.

Driscoll and Mr.

LaRue, who granted wonderful people.

But there was a misstep that was made.

And that misstep has cost me six months of time.

Every month I sit there is about $14,000 in interest, plus another $4,000 in property taxes, insurance, and maintenance.

So it's about $18,000.

I'm burning $18 to $20,000 a month just to sit idle.

And we've sat long enough, right?

So that's $120,000.

Does the commission know that the town of Erie is going to make $2.2 million on the fees that I'm going to pay for $23 homes?

I'm going to pay $2.2 million to the town of Erie, not taxes for the right to build, the right to water, and the right for permit review, of which I've already paid about $350,000.

But each development, we will pay 2.2 to that's in today's numbers.

It may go up as the development continues.

And for that kind of payment, that's a big number to a little guy like me.

That's tremendous.

And it's a big number to someone who wants to create affordability.

And so our development costs, our density had to be low.

You heard it's 8.4.

It's as low as it could be.

Right?

We don't get the luck of being more dense in terms of our uh utilization of units.

We are stuck with that number.

We've built it out.

I'm good with it.

But boy, has it been a frustrating process.

And I trust me when I say I know that no one on this commission or in this room wants to create that type of frustration.

But I think that I was not given due process.

And I ask that you think consider that seriously.

And so when I'm applying for my permits and I'm forking out 180,000 to the town for the right to build one duplex that people actually think about that.

Right?

I meant what I said that I wanted an apology from this town council.

I wanted to have some form of remuneration from the town of Erie for what I'm doing.

I don't think it's fair.

I don't think it's ethical.

I'm gonna move forward with my project either way, but I'm not gonna stop talking about it.

It's not right.

Any questions about the SRU, about the development itself?

I'm more than happy to answer anyone's questions with respect to architecture, style, kind of what we're thinking about.

Uh the market has definitely changed in the three years since we started this development, or five years really, since we started it, but in the last three significantly.

I'm happy to answer any question anyone would have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for your presentation and your comments.

Uh the time is now 710 p.m.

and we'll move to public testimony.

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

I do not have anyone signed up, and no hands are raised for those that are in virtual attendance.

All right.

Um we'll move to commissioner questions.

Uh what we do here is we start with two questions and go around just to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak before someone asks all the good questions.

Um Commissioner Sawish, are you okay with starting?

Just from the sky, and I can't see your hand raised.

Yeah, yep, I am.

Thank you.

All right.

Um there was a uh comment that was provided to this body that was, I believe, added to the agenda related to the north fence line.

And there was uh question related to the um upkeep as well as um rebuild of the fence.

So um does the applicant by chance have any comments related to what the plan is for that area?

I do.

If we can pull up the site plan from the planning documents, I'll talk to it.

Is that one right?

That's great.

On the two corners of the northern boundary of the property where the two new buildings are shown as proposed in this graphical illustration, those two fences will be new, constructed.

The area that is what I call the concrete horseshoe, which is the alley in the back that runs east-west.

There's a fence that runs in that area.

We will not replace any or repair any fencing there.

That is the owner's fences in that area.

And they can take care of it.

We will take care of everything on the other side of that fence.

We will mow it.

We will maintain it, as it is our requirement to do so.

Is the fence on the property line or is it on the property of the northern owners?

In certain areas, I believe uh almost exclusively, Commissioner.

I think that it is on the property line of the owners in every case.

That being said, there's that fencing area in that area is in generally good condition, generally.

It's the areas where we're building new housing in the upper left and upper right areas.

Those are the areas where the fences have fallen apart, and we will replace those because we're going to be building homes there now.

Okay, those are my two questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Booth.

Um I guess my first question is for staff.

Um the premise of the SRU was for the change in design on the garages.

Am I correct?

No, the purpose for the special review use is to allow a duplex use in the OTR Old Town Residential Zone District.

So initially it was single family.

Well, that's what's currently allowed in that zone district, yes.

Um it's been zoned that for quite some time.

So that's the only use that's permitted is single family detached as a use by right.

Okay.

So correct me if I'm wrong, but this planning commission, we have not seen any of the applications on this project so far.

Um I don't believe anyone here has seen any of those, but it has received uh preliminary plat and final plat approval for the use.

Okay.

Okay, so I understand your point about the fence.

But and you are saying that you will maintain things that are on the southern side of the fence.

Correct.

Yeah, okay.

That's right.

My only question.

Okay.

I'll just keep going down the line.

I have a quick comment on the fence too.

I was just looking at the Ulta survey, and it it doesn't look like any of it comes over.

It looks like it's all on the property line or on the folks' homes to the north.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh my one question.

Um, I know there's some relatively new duplexes on Bridge Street.

Are these nominally the same height?

Or do you know the relative height compared to those buildings?

Those are taller.

Those are taller.

That's what I have.

We have different height restrictions because of where in the old town district.

The bridge street development was in the same area, but I think it was subjected or allowed to have a different height.

Yeah.

Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's they're definitely good.

They're they will be there are taller and they will be taller.

If you what what we're doing are two stories, you know, we have a height restriction.

I think it's is it 24?

Uh, it's 35 feet is the max height in the old town residential district uh for a home.

25 feet for an accessory.

Um I can't remember how tall your homes were looking at.

I could look at one of the things.

I don't think the duplexes were when we initially did this, Commissioner.

I wanted to try to compete with the Toll Brothers style, which is a three-story structure that has the pull-in garage on the first floor, and then you kind of walk up to your living second, and then you have a roof.

That was what I was thinking initially, but we weren't allowed to get that height during that period during final plat and preliminary plat period in 21 and 2021 and even into 22.

So when we did all of that work, we we just let go of that and we went with the designs that you saw earlier.

Which is a two-story where you have a single story, uh, I mean, excuse me, a walk-up first floor, a second floor, and then a roof.

And it won't, we're not gonna do flat roofs.

That's not it's not congruent with the style in old town either.

I wouldn't do a modern style roof.

This isn't right for that area.

Thank you.

Commissioner Jackman.

Um, Chris, this these duplexes are consistent with the comp plan, correct?

Because this is residential medium, medium, yes, they they definitely are.

The comprehensive plan designates a variety of housing, uh, including single family, small lots, duplexes, um, it's small apartment type buildings.

So those are all supported with the comp plan itself.

Okay, and then my second question is there's no even if the fence needed to be repaired, there's no requirement from the town that he repair it, regardless, correct?

Repair the fence, like the if the fence in the horseshoe needed, there's no town requirement that the developer specifically.

Oh, I see what you're asking.

No, if it's an off-site fence that somebody else owns, there's no requirement that would mandate uh a private developer to fix something like that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Wee.

Yeah, I just had two questions.

Um, one's a clarification.

Um slide deck, um, the first slide in the presentation uh of the proposal noted uh 10 buildings and 20 units.

Um I counted 11 buildings and 22 units, and the applicant referred to 23 units.

Correct.

What is it?

I think that so this SRU is an application for the duplexes.

Okay.

There's one triplex building, and if we go back to the overhead.

Mr.

LaRue will show you if you see his cursor there on the image.

So that is a triplex, and that will have to be subject to a separate review, a site plan review, which we did also back in 21 in 20.

And we'll do it again.

Okay, good, thank you.

And then um the other question I had concerned the garages.

The um elevation of the garage showed a second floor window.

Is that intended to be an occupiable space uh dwelling unit above the garage?

We were trying initially.

The you know the the biggest catalyst or the biggest problem I have as a business person trying to do this is the construction costs that I have to do two different buildings on a lot, and that the garages, even though there's two garages there, that's really it was intended to be another building to make it an accessory dwelling unit that people could use.

Um that plus the houses are two different structures.

They have two different forms of plumbing, two different sewer line, two different everything.

And what that did is it kind of pushed up my expense considerably.

And I couldn't get the project funded last summer because of that.

And I was afraid that if I went to market, I would come out with a product that was selling in the low eight, high sevens, best case, high sevens, and right across the street is Toll Brothers selling this a product for $600,000 right across the street.

And so it's you know, this is just the nature of big business versus small business.

And when I bought this lot uh five years ago, my intention was to kind of create what I thought would be more of a high-end duplex product for people that wanted to live and walk into old town and have that walkability.

I still believe that's the case.

I still believe we have a good market for that, but I have to bring down my costs and bring down the style because I what if you're a new home buyer and you're looking at one of our properties that is walkable into town for 780, or you can buy a toll brothers duplex a half a mile away for 620 or 650.

What are you gonna do as a young buyer, right?

Or not it's it's a challenging situation for me, but that's really what this came down to, which is why I've stated in my narrative the the ability to look at doing detached garage, attached garage, which is less costly to build, an attached garage scenario, so it's only one building, or no garage at all, and allow the homeowner to possibly get into their home, like many people did in the 50s and 60s and 70s, to get into their home, build some equity, build some capital, and then build a garage at a different time, right?

So that's the kind of stuff I'm looking at.

I want to try to make this so it's attainable for people so we can get in there and and give people a product like we did in in Lafayette.

I I'm so proud of what we were able to achieve in downtown Lafayette.

And it really is a mirror image of what you see here.

It was on the eastern border of Old Town Lafayette.

This is on the western border of Old Town Erie.

It's the exact same vibe in many ways.

And I love the fact that I could give people the ability to buy into that that neighborhood, buy a home for themselves, and instantly have equity for them, right?

That's what I'm doing as a business.

I could care less about building big mansions and building houses for wealthy people.

This is what I want to do.

This is why I quit the corporate world is to try to get in and build housing for people, right?

And I don't want to do it through affordable housing and public housing.

I want to try to build it in a way that is just straight up market style, right?

Market dynamics.

Thank you.

Sorry for the long-winded message, by the way.

Couple of quick comments too from us on those comments as well.

Um we're totally open to working with uh alternative ideas and so requirements per se for garages or um detached or attached, uh either of those things can work.

There's no issue whatsoever.

Um, just a quick note on the triplex unit.

Um, yes, it's correct, it's not included in this request.

We had um wanted to include that if we could, but uh Mr.

Jacobs wanted to just move forward with the duplexes, so that will need to be a future application.

We'll work with him on that.

Yeah, we really need to get get running.

Yeah, Commissioner Schatz.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Jacob, thanks for being here.

Uh if our rules allow, I might circle back to you, but I'm I guess I'm confined to two questions for now.

So for staff, um let's talk hypothetically about a fence on a north property boundary.

Apparently, there will be one uh at least built by the developer where there's a unit on the two on the west and the east.

Um and you had indicated in your presentation, Chris, that uh the city has accepted the infrastructure.

There is no homeowners association, anything uh of the nature of a fence is that who's gonna maintain that in the future?

Yeah, I can let Nick answer that.

I I think they have common uh stuff to take care of through the detention area and the um uh the uh shared the alleys, the common this is a common interest type of community okay so Commissioner Schatz, the entire uh concrete, the streets, the alleys, the detention pond, there's about a six-foot landscape gap buffer, it varies in size, but just we'll call it a sort of a landscape median buffer that runs along Balcombe and along County Line Road, all of those areas plus uh all of those areas were to be considered part of the HOA.

I was not going to do fencing as part of the HOA.

I didn't do it at my development in Lafayette, and it's actually worked out really well for the HOA and the people of the HOA.

It's it's a debatable issue, I understand, but they you know, I I the majority of comments I got back went after the declarant, which is what we're called in an HOA when when it handed over to the people that actually owned the homes, they were like, Thank you for not forcing us to have to police the fencing for everybody in the area.

So I do have a second question, Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Um yes, thank you for that answer.

Um, back to the staff report, and this is in the written staff report, and I understand we're not going to adjudicate uh due process and that kind of thing.

That is simply not what we do.

But Chris, if you could help me understand the comment back to 2021 and the timeline presented, page two of your report.

Planning process was completed prior to the SRU moving forward.

This is allowed by code, but is an atypical process.

Why do we have this disconnect between what you're saying and what the applicant is saying?

Yeah, so atypical.

Um that's used mainly because it makes more sense to run them concurrently, but the code doesn't prohibit it.

But you are saying they were run separately, and the applicant is saying contrary to that.

Right.

So he did it.

Uh obviously, some of the information presented is true.

Uh initially we had intended to run it that way.

Um we had different leadership at the time that decided that that process should go um with preliminary leading the final and then final plat, making sure that those lots were created before the use permit.

Um clearly it's not preferred.

I mean, obviously, if we had done that, we wouldn't be here, but be that as it may.

Thank you.

Uh, we'll move back to Commissioner Salish.

Okay.

Um staff, just to confirm.

Uh preliminary plat has been approved.

The final plot has been approved.

We have a developer agreement in place, and the horizontal development, i.e., the infrastructure has been completed to the town's standards and accepted by the town.

Correct.

All of the things related to the final plat.

Uh, so that would be all the roads and common features, yes.

Okay, and just to confirm the infrastructure that was put in place was anticipating the duplexes and single triplex going in there.

I'm gonna look to the applicant for that one.

Well, I can answer that too.

And if Nick wants to check it out, then he can yes to answer your question.

That's what it was designed for.

Okay.

And hypothetically, and I'm gonna ask um Mr.

LaRue as well as the applicant, the same question.

If we did not recommend approval, if the council were to not approve, what would be the next steps for the applicant?

Right.

So just um taking that question at face value, what options would present themselves if it weren't successful?

It's zoned OTR, so it would support single family uh options could be looked at.

I'm not saying they're viable, but you could potentially amend the plat to facilitate a single family development on the site.

And for the applicant.

I I can't predict what type of legislative changes would be required.

We never intended and never built the infrastructure, we never moved forward with the infrastructure development agreement or with spending the two million dollars it took to get it done in order to be in this room today and have to re assess what we were what we believe we were already approved for, Commissioner.

I don't know what to tell you.

I don't know what I would do.

Okay.

Thank you.

Those are my two questions.

Commissioner Booth, anything else?

Um I'll ask this, but obviously if when building something damages the fence, then you would fix it, but I'm not in the middle.

Obviously.

So that's I don't have anything else.

Commissioner Dreck.

Nothing else?

Commissioner Schatz.

Um appreciate that you have a letter and you have some other supporting material, Mr.

Jacobs, including this neighborhood meeting report.

Uh do I understand this is from 2025 or 2026?

26.

Okay.

If there's a 25 in there, it's a typo.

My apologies.

Okay.

Good.

So this is very current.

Um can you tell me a little bit about the one versus two car garages attached versus detached?

I I didn't get a whole lot of idea how committed uh you are to any particular design or how much that's causing anyone any concern.

I can't come on it on the concern aspect because I'm not others.

The options don't concern me.

What concerns me is starting off with a product that is sellable that people will buy.

So for me, I don't know yet, and I have to work before you can even get to sell, you have to get to finance and lending and what banks will lend.

And so what I ran into last summer was banking, both private banking and public banking's unwillingness to lend for a project based on the tight margins that we were showing with a separate garage system, a separate garage with a you know livable area above it, and a house.

And since then the market has even gotten worse.

And so what I'm looking to consider with banks and other lenders that I'm talking to to finance the project is whether or not we're gonna go to market with the duplex with a detached garage and offer the detached garage as a separate add-on as an option or an add-on is what home builders will do.

So we'll have a base price that is the house, and that would include a carpet pad and a port, and then the the option of second to that would be paying more for the detached garage.

In like a bank of garages, they'd be a building gangster.

Well, they're not all ganged together.

So each of the duplexes are on their own separate lots.

I do a duplex property where I split it in half so that they the buyers of those homes have what's called fee simple ownership, and it allows them to get a better interest rate for their loan.

And when I do that, we had originally proposed showing the garages as butting right up against each other, just like the duplexes did.

But what we would do is just separate that and we would separate them so that if one unit wanted to build their garage, they could, and if the other one did not, they didn't have to.

So that was the thinking we would do at this time.

And I don't have a perfect answer for you.

I still have to get like banks and lenders won't really talk to me anymore until I get this SRU done.

They want to know that we've got it through and that we can actually have real conversations with them about it.

Mr.

Chair.

Thank you.

Can I direct this question to staff then?

So going back to the site plan, I'm pretty unclear what amount of variation from that is allowed if we approve the resolution that was presented.

We aren't expecting to change site plan.

There would be no modification whatsoever to site plan.

Right now, this is just a concept.

Yeah, let's let's clarify.

Yeah, let's clarify a few things on that just to follow up on what Kelly said.

Duplexes do not require site plan review by the town.

They're allowed to go and get building permits once they're permitted through SRU and SRU.

It's contemplating the use itself.

That's duplexes in the OTR residential zone.

Um when he applies for permits, he can change.

This is not a formal uh reviewed site plan, this concept plan, you should think of it that way.

Um it predominantly will probably resemble this, but I think the primary thing that you'll see is uh locations of garages could flex a little as long as they stay within uh parameters of the OTR zone setbacks, etc.

Uh, they're not locked in necessarily.

So um I think that's what I wanted to add.

Okay.

Yeah, another question.

I will have comment.

Okay.

Any final questions from Commissioner Salish?

I do.

Um I'm gonna pull this thread.

Uh Mr.

LaRue, you had said uh initially there was an application that came through.

Um, I'm assuming the one that was in 2021, it was for uh preliminary plat, site plan, and SRU at one time.

Um you had made the comments, I believe we had different leadership at the time who believed that we should get the preliminary plat through first and then move through the other processes.

That what I am to understand.

Yes.

Uh the original site plan was only for the triplex unit, not for the duplexes.

Uh and again, site plan not required for those.

Okay.

And um based on what staff has noted to date, the triplex would still require an additional application for site plan as well as for the SRU if the applicant wanted to continue moving forward with the triplex.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um that's all uh the questions I have.

Thank you.

Final questions.

Okay, great.

Time is now 7 35 p.m.

and I'm closing the public hearing.

Uh, and then to Commissioner Delveration.

I'll open the floor if who wants to start.

I can that works, Commissioner Salish.

Okay.

Um staff, I appreciate you taking the time to um to work this all out uh for the applicant.

Um thank you for um being before us.

In your letter for the narrative for the application, um it said that you um it says I expect an apology from the planning commission and town council and remuneration for the town's cost of delays via reduction of building permit and water rights fees.

Um we are not the body that would be able to provide any reductions in any of the permit and uh water right fees.

Um we could potentially make a recommendation for that, but I believe that would be outside of our uh purview.

Um the the apology that I would like to make to you is um as the only individual here in the room, except for uh in the room, except for Mr.

LaRue and Melinda.

Um we were the only individuals who have been here who heard your sketch plan, who had a preliminary plat reviewed, who also saw the final plat.

Um I was a planning commissioner that reviewed your sketch plan and at the beginning of 2021, provide a recommendation for approval back in 2021, as well as a council member who approved your final plat in 2023.

I have never had an applicant come before us with a gall or demand like I have seen tonight.

I have never had to say this to a single applicant.

I have never heard this from a single applicant.

I understand your frustration.

This is something that obviously staff is going to be looking at and reviewing to figure out how we can change the process, but I have never had an applicant come before us and demand what you have, nor ask the questions to us at the beginning of an application, nor to make the remarks that you have at all.

I have seen hundreds of applications, and I have never seen that.

And I don't know what might have been discussed um outside of uh outside of the public hearing, but we as planning commissioners, the council members, we cannot have any discussions related to an application because it is a quasiuditional nature.

So I I do apologize that you weren't able to have these frustrations and remarks brought to us or the you know, potentially the council in the in the future.

Um but I would say I would change your demeanor real quick, and I apologize if I'm being very brash, but again, I have never heard an applicant come before this body or the council or the former board of trustees in this manner.

I am in the mind that there is no reason for us to deny this application.

It has gone through all the approvals required.

This is a formality in my eyes.

Um, but we have the development agreement, the final plat, preliminary plats, everything already approved.

This is basically just putting a bow on it.

So um again, it's a 200,000 dollars.

This isn't a so I have no concerns with recommending approval.

However, I understand the frustration, but I would not in my personally having been on the other side of where this is going to next, it is not going to be received well for the applicants if they if they come with the same demeanor.

So I would strongly recommend a change in the way that this is brought forward.

Again, I understand the frustration.

So those are all my comments.

Thank you.

I think I'm good.

Most of us are new to this or this application.

Let's concentrate on moving forward rather than revisiting the past.

Okay, um for those who were not aware.

I've seen a few special review cases in my life.

Um in our code, the purpose of special review use is to address, and this is a quote unique or widely varying operating characteristics or unusual site development features.

Procedure encourages public review and evaluation of the uses operating characteristics and site development features.

I have never um seen a use by special review, special reviews, special exception.

There are many ways to phrase this without conditions.

Um maybe this is the one exception, and that's because this probably shouldn't be required to go through a special review use in the first place.

Uh that said, it does disturb me that we are not allowed to talk about the site's unique development features.

Um I I very much understood that walking in, uh, but I think we have a code problem.

This probably isn't the place to let it play out, though.

So that's my comment for now.

Okay.

The other I just have a comment about the I mean, just the code.

I agree that the code needs to be updated.

Um that's in progress, but just in 10 3-1 table permitted uses, a duplex is a special review use in old town.

So that's just how it is.

I think it's worth evaluating that as we go through our code updates.

Um, so we don't have to do this again.

Uh but that's my comment again with Commissioner Salish.

I don't have any issues with approving this.

So we just I won't comment on the process, which um concerns me, but on the merits of the case, I welcome the diversity of housing that this provides, and um I appreciate that and we'll support it otherwise.

Okay.

Anyone want to make a motion?

Since you prefer uh conditions before I do I do believe, Mr.

Chair.

Yeah.

Uh we have heard about fence.

Uh there is a mechanism for a fence to be maintained.

Uh that's already part of the site plan, I guess, uh, or the forthcoming site plans that maybe the triplex on the east, but not the west.

Seems to me like we might want to have a condition about the fence.

Uh I'm very confused about the garage uh style.

That is properly addressed by special use review.

Um I don't know that we have a basis to condition uh tonight, but it would be appropriate and within our power.

So I don't know what others think about that.

I kind of feel like there should be something about the fence.

What would you think about the fence?

To that there be a condition to construct and uh have the uma, whatever the mechanism is maintained, the fence is constructed and has been presented through this process.

Would it just be the two fences on the the east and west or the full length of the property is what you're thinking?

I think the full length of the property, but that's that's my opinion based on this exists for all time, so we can't count on the fence being there on the other side of the property line.

Yeah, uh I would just say that the conclusion I've come to is that the fence that's already existing on the property of the neighbors is the neighbor's property, and so I'm not sure we can give a condition for that to be maintained by somebody else, right?

It would be a condition to build a pro a fence along this property.

Okay, so you're talking about an additional fence.

Yeah.

I personally would not support that condition.

Yeah, I don't have a strong opinion.

I think if anything, it'd be the east and west fence that I could potentially support, but not a full property line.

For the town attorney, um would this be something that would be addressed in an amended developer agreement?

I I do not believe so.

Um the development agreement has been executed and um it addresses public infrastructure for the most part or public improvements, and those public improvements have been completed.

Um the the development agreements typically that are associated with the uh final plats typically don't address private infrastructure private fences.

So they if we I don't think there's a mechanism uh in the development agreement to address that.

Yeah, it's been the landscape plan in the preliminary would have been where this would have been addressed, I believe.

Potentially, but I I mean I think if the planning commission thinks that a fence is warranted through the special reviews permit to mitigate any concerns, they could require it.

Um it's not like a huge cost in terms of fencing, and they would absorb it into probably just the general HOA maintenance uh items.

I don't think it would be um would need to probably change any of the approved plans in any way.

I don't see why we wouldn't want to make a motion or motion to amend sure.

I'd move to uh add a condition to the resolution before us to require the developer to build and pass long maintenance responsibility for fences where shown uh on his current concept, not to include the area north of the road, but those areas east and west that have buildings.

Is that specific enough?

I think probably you mean north property line.

On the north property line, thank you.

Motion discussion.

Is that a second, Commissioner Solish?

I'll I'll second, but discussion, please.

Yeah.

So we have a motion and a second.

We'll go into debate.

So the question is effectively approving with condition that we provide or that the developer maintain through the life of the property, the the northwest, the northeast fence that was presented.

So open to debate.

Okay, maker of the motion.

I guess I get to go first.

I think it's just to you know put up as we're talking about putting a bow on the process.

There's nothing else that captures it.

Okay.

It was presented.

There's nothing else that requires it.

Should be part of what we do.

That's what special use review does.

Thank you.

Any other comments?

I'm raising my hand.

Yep.

You're good.

This is difficult.

I will say that this is something that is normally included in the plans, one of the previous applications.

You know, those kinds of things.

Basically, the lights going through.

I am concerned if there is ever something that happens to that fence where it is going to be completely on the on the neighbors to the north to replace.

Okay.

Any other comments before we call the vote?

I I would just say that I think it's important for us as a body to um first of all be empathetic to the what's what the development community has to go through, but I also think it's important to hold developers accountable for the promises made.

And ways to do that is to affix conditions to these approvals.

So I support this.

Okay.

Anybody want a roll call vote?

All right.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Okay.

Well, that was the amending the resolution.

I will move that we pass resolution P 26-10 as amended.

Oh, I thought that's what we did.

Wasn't I thought he said well I thought what he said was amending it, not approved.

Oh sorry, I think I missed it.

Okay.

So now we didn't read it.

So we have a you want to make a motion to yeah, the the motion was to approve the resolution as amended.

So I think the the first motion that uh commissioner made was to add a condition uh or amend revise the proposed resolution to add a condition to the approval.

That was approved by the body.

So the motion now is the motion to approve the resolution with that condition added.

Is that a thing we normally do?

No.

Second.

All right.

All right.

We will do a voice vote.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All those say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that is final, correct?

Is that the same?

Yes.

There's no one involved.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So our third item is 2026 321, a resolution of the point of commission of the town of Erie recommending that the town council adopt an ordinance amending chapters 6 and 11 of Title 10 of the Erie Municipal Code regarding landscaping.

Time is now 7.51 p.m.

I'll turn it over to staff.

Hi commissioners.

Kelly Driscoll, Deputy Planning and Development Director.

Here today to talk through some proposed changes to Title 10.

These changes have to deal with uh turf and landscaping.

Again, I'll give you a background, uh, the specifics of the proposal and then uh the criteria for your decision.

Some recent changes to state law uh require that municipalities prohibit non-functional turf uh from being installed at certain properties.

These are commercial institutional or industrial properties, properties within a common interest community, rights of way, parking lots, medians or transportation corridors, and multifamily dwelling units with 12 or more units.

Uh state law does define functional turf as turf that's used to recreate, gather, that sort of thing.

Um there's lots of uh examples in the state law of what that could be.

Um and non-functional turf does include turf located in the right-of-way in a parking lot, median or transportation corridor.

The state law does carve out um that native grass or grass hybridized for arid conditions would still be um allowed on those applicable properties.

So what you have before you today is a proposal that would prohibit the installation of native species, non-functional turf, and non-functional artificial turf on those applicable properties.

It allows grass seed or sod that is native or has been hybridized or are arid conditions.

Uh there were several um incorrect code section references that uh were cleaned up with this proposed change, and then we've updated and added definitions to better align with the state law.

So as far as the criteria for your decision, these are outlined in um title 10 718, and um they delineate that the amendment will promote public health safety and general welfare.

It's consistent with the master plan and the purposes of the UDC and is necessary or desirable because of changing conditions, new planning concepts or other social or economic conditions.

Uh public notice uh is not uh required for planning commission.

It's not a public hearing, um, and a neighborhood meeting is not required for UDC changes.

It is scheduled to go to council on June 9th for their consideration of these amendments.

Uh we do recommend that you adopt resolution 26-09 uh recommending that town council adopt uh the changes before you and be happy to answer any questions and Elliot Schaefer, deputy town attorney is here as well.

Thank you for your presentation.

Sure.

Um I guess the time is 7 55 p.m.

And again, we'll start with two questions.

We'll go in opposite order.

Are you happy to start yet?

Or you want me to make you last?

Sure.

Uh I'm more than happy.

I have one.

Uh, and it's if we know that there's a problem.

Uh, or is this just aligning with legislation, even though we really haven't experienced a lot of people proposing non-functional turf and erie?

Oh, um, yeah, I mean, I think the problem is the not necessarily the non-functionality of turf, but the type of turf that is installed, tends to be that uh Kentucky bluegrass that needs a lot of water, and obviously we live in a very arid climate.

We're in the middle of a drought.

So yeah, it does does make sense to still allow people to put turf wherever they might want to, but to restrict it to species that are better suited.

Okay, so I guess I'll take my second question, which is this will impact development going forward.

It will change the character of what's being proposed.

Um, not necessarily.

There are plenty of turf options that look you know just as lush and attractive that that are better suited for our climate.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Leaf?

No questions.

Commissioner.

No questions.

Um for this, it doesn't seem I know there's been debate about the turf in a new development.

Um this doesn't really capture like a single family yard.

It doesn't look like we're right.

There aren't um restrictions.

Um it's just those applicable properties.

Okay.

Is there any is that just so this is really just to comply with the state law?

It's not really advanced.

Right.

We will we are planning to um look at the landscape code as a as a whole with the with the cold code update, and uh we'll be delving into that as far as other changes.

Okay, yeah.

Thank you.

One quick question.

Uh I know you need a permit from the town to do things in the right away in the tree lawn.

Uh when that permit is looked at, do you include this type of review?

Um it would uh going forward, yeah, to ensure that they're not so then they have a place to catch it early.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Booth?

No questions, Commissioner Salish.

Um did we have a UDC amendment that was similar to this in the past?

Not that I am aware of town-owned property.

Hmm.

I'm not I'm not familiar with one.

It didn't have to do with turf on town-owned property.

Uh it did not have to do with turf, I didn't think we had that one with town-owned property.

Um had to do with building open, yeah, it was open space, I think, on something with town owned property we did a few weeks ago.

Um the re the reason I bring this up is because I know that um I think it is compass park.

The initial design thoughts there were to put astro turf.

Um, would this prohibit the town's ability to do so?

No, um, I think what you're referring to, that would be considered functional astro turf, so that is allowed.

Okay.

That's all.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

Who would like to make a motion?

All right.

I would shots.

Move the approval of resolution P 26-09 as presented.

Second.

Motion from Schatz and a second from Jeckman uh to approve a resolution of the planning commission of the town of Erie recommendation that the town council adopt an order an ordinance amending chapters six and eleven of title 10 of the Erie Municipal Code regarding landscaping.

Anyone want to request a roll call vote?

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion passes unanimously.

Thanks.

All right.

Our final item is 2026 324 discussion of proposition 123 fast track.

The time is now 8 p.m.

This is more of a general open discussion uh in preparation for our joint session with town council on June 2nd.

Um just for background, town council uh removed affordable housing provisions in our UDC last year by the ordinance that was attached.

Um during that process, because it was a UDC change, it came to planning commission.

Um we had multiple meetings, discussions about this, and what we ultimately submitted again, that was in our packet was resolution P2507.

My understanding that wasn't presented to the town council during their discussion.

Um, due to effectively what we did was deny with conditions.

That's what I was informed by legal, um, whereas we are only allowed to approve or approve with conditions or deny.

So they effectively treated it as a rejection.

Um during that debate, we did I think we had really good discussion.

Uh we had two new members on the the board, and we are meeting in two weeks on June 2nd.

So again, like I said, I want this to be an open forum so we can kind of come at this from uh a place where we're generally in agreement of the position of the board.

I mean, obviously the town council will have their opinions as well.

Um, but want to make sure that we're kind of a cohesive uh a group as much as we can be.

Um so before I open it, just uh note our joint session will also include a planning staff report um on the requested comprehensive plan changes from the town council and an overview of the major work plan for the the planning group, including the planning commission.

So it'll be uh an exciting meeting uh for everyone who loves planning.

So um I'm happy to you just want to speak on some thoughts on the affordable housing provision.

I'm happy to call it in again.

It's eight o'clock, so let's see what we can do to not be here all night.

Anyone have closure first?

Commissioner Bruce.

Um, somebody I just have a question.

I didn't catch what you said.

We the idea from tonight is to come up with some ideas or somewhat be a united front for that joint session.

I got not necessarily, I guess.

It was more of I mean ultimately the pointing commission as a group will need to come to uh a decision.

Um so maybe I misspoke.

I think that's probably more and when you say a decision decision on different talking points or maybe start out like um with that joint session.

I feel like it's going to be staff led.

Is that correct?

Is it almost similar to like a study session, but with conversation?

Yes.

Okay.

So I I think really what I want to get here is that at least everyone has an opportunity when there are seven of us to talk about what's important to each of us in the point of commission, and then when there's 14 of us in a room with town council, um that if you come up with something and I have an opportunity to speak, and you haven't had an option to come up with it, it's we're all aware that uh this may come up.

So maybe it's to get kind of our our thoughts on the matter of uh what we can do as we get to that larger group, because I don't want that to devolve into I don't think it would be a yelling match, but we would have so a clarification.

Possibly the first thing that formally comes to us is comprehensive plan changes that have been requested already by the town council.

Is that correct?

Do you want to answer?

Do you mean the the order of the meeting on the second or I so this is an informal discussion, paraphrasing uh, but in terms of what actually would be in front of the planning commission next, is it comprehensive plan changes if directed by the town council?

So town council did direct some changes on January 6th, and we've been working on those.

We've been doing some um community education on those, and since those two your your two bodies were gonna be together, we thought it would be a great time to give you an update on that as well.

But it will come back to this body for a recommendation that is the process, yeah.

But there's also the fast track process, correct?

Which is not part of the comprehensive plan, and that's one of the bigger concerns in some of our minds.

Is that we had a fast track process, and then our recommendation was to keep it in place while we came up with uh amendments to it, and town council decided just to revoke it all, and so there's nothing in place now which has potential funding impacts for us going forward, Mr.

Chair.

Uh so is the fast track process a UDC.

Uh what is it in terms of its existence within the planning process?

Right.

So um Prop 123 and the state's interpretation of it has sort of evolved over time.

Um initially there wasn't a whole lot of direction on what it might apply to.

Um and it's really been narrowed down to a just handful of application types, some of which are already administrative.

And uh what we've determined is there's there's actually no need to change the code for to comply, it would just be internal processes that would need to change.

We'd we kind of front load it with more pre-application meetings to work through those issues.

Um what was removed in um last year?

Last year.

Um really while it did have some administrative reviews, there were a lot of incentives as well.

And so the all of that was taken out of the code.

So yeah.

But in terms of if I if I may uh and and thank you, Ms.

Driscoll oriented uh Mr.

Leaf and I pretty well, because I now recall this conversation about Astrack is um providing an administrative review process for certain types of applications.

Not not necessarily what we found is um so um there's a handful of application types like uh a site plan, um, a variance, a special review use, like you saw tonight.

Um all of those um to some extent require a public hearing, site plans over 25,000 square feet come to you.

Um what we've worked out is that basically um if somebody and it's all optional, a developer wanted to come and do affordable housing that meets the definition.

Um over half their units would have to be affordable, and um say they needed a special review use.

So we would basically have as many pre-applications with that applicant as we needed to work through any issues so that when they made an official application, it's ready to go.

And so that that really shrinks that front-end time that we spend a lot of time with back and forth.

So it would still come through public hearing, neighborhood meetings, all of that stuff.

Yeah.

And I believe one of the the big concerns of the application process when we last saw it was there was a concern that a large development with the minimum number of affordable housing units, even if it was hundreds of acres, could be administratively approved.

And in some readings of the the language that was available, um that'd be uh a pretty interesting way to go about it, um, but it was allowed.

So that was part of one of our um recommendations that was part of that uh resolution that we sent as something that we acknowledged and wanted to do.

So I think that's it captured a lot of that.

Um just a general question.

I I know that there's funding tied to that.

It's my understanding um that funding has to be appropriated by the legislature.

And I'm wondering if now that we've completed a legislative session at the Capitol, if we know if that funding was appropriated or if there's anything at risk for and I have the details of that if you'd like.

And full disclosure, I think most people here know, but not don't know everybody does.

I am also the board president of Habitat uh for humanity of St.

Frain.

So I have a strong interest in affordable housing.

Um so there was a movement of funds initially.

Um where initially there was 187.1 million dollars for fiscal year 27, 199.5 for 28, and to 10.7 for fiscal year 29.

After the budget cuts, that moved to 57.1, where a ton of money was removed from fiscal 27.

There were no changes in 27 or 28 and 29.

They then had an amendment 1313, which moved it so that all the money that was taken out 27 was then split equally between 27, 28, and 29.

And so there's 137.1 million dollars available in the state.

So it's a significant amount of money.

Okay.

And to be eligible for it, you must have somehow a fast track process.

And the deadline for that is what November something like that.

Um let me see if I have it in this email.

Um no, I don't have it in this.

January one.

It was January.

Effectively, we need something by the end of the year, right?

End of the year.

Okay.

But but what we've identified is um there wouldn't be code changes necessary unless you all felt the need to do that in council as well.

So again, process changes, yeah, it would just be a process change.

Yeah.

Clarification.

Okay.

Go ahead, Andrew.

Go ahead, Commissioner Salasha.

Um, so what Ms.

Triskel said you said there wouldn't be code changes necessary, it'd be process changes.

Are you referring to um what we previously had in there that was repealed, or are you saying the current UDC as it sits right now is able to handle this?

The current UDC as it sits right now.

Okay.

Okay, so just to clarify, I think you had listed some applications earlier.

You said uh site plan SRU preliminary plat.

No, not preliminary plat.

What what are the application types that would be so you all are getting a little preview of um the second, and I apologize, I will not be there, but um you'll be in very capable hands, Sarah Normella, the director and Josh Campbell are um senior strategic planner will be there.

Um so the application types that it applies to are site plan, um special review use, variants, building permits, and architecture.

That's it.

Okay, so if they need a rezoning, it would go through all the same um process.

But for those I'm sorry, go on, Andrew.

Oh, previously what we had in place was above and beyond what is actually required for the direction that the state has now developed over time.

Yeah, there wasn't a lot of direction when it first um came out, and yeah.

Yeah, for your information for the newer commissioners, Erie was one of the leading forces, whatever you want to call it, and did went above and beyond what in the end turned out to be required, and so that's why this became revisited.

Commissioner Dreckman.

Um I just think at risk of this becoming what it was last time, it might be productive if the commissioners that feel super passionately about this, maybe like speak for a few minutes, you know, or just explain where they're coming from rather than I don't we don't have to do that.

I just think that like at risk of the my first back from maternity leave four-hour meeting you guys put me through.

I uh I would that might be like a good way to start, and then maybe the ones that um maybe don't have as strong of a feeling about it could ask questions.

Yeah, my main question, I mean, do you agree with that?

I don't know, whatever you guys want to do.

I just my main question is because of the stipulation to get 123 money, the town and the money actually goes to the developer, it doesn't go to the town.

Um the town had to have a fast track process in place, particularly, and the only time it really had to be enforced was if more than 50 percent of the properties were affordable by the definitions.

Um I would love to see that, but I'm not expecting any of those to happen, but we'll see.

Um so even with that, we still don't need any code changes.

Correct.

Okay.

Do you know why they did the ordinance in the first place then?

I do not know.

I was not involved.

Um yeah, I'm I'm I don't know.

Okay, thanks.

I think I think they wanted to incentivize it was the incentives part of it.

It was the incentives, all right.

Yeah.

Commissioner Salish.

Are are we uh Vice Chair Brodis?

Are you referring to what was the purpose of the original ordinance?

Correct.

That's what I was asking.

The the original ordinance was created because it was understood at that time in order to be eligible to receive Prop 123 funding, you had to have this expedited process in place, and there was ambiguity as to what that process meant.

Um we had individual uh we had applicants who were at annexation and rezoning that were um potentially going to be trying to use that administrative review process because there was such ambiguity, but the UDC at the time through that ordinance allowed it where it would bypass preliminary platform, our understanding, and again, lots of ambiguity, but it was to be able to gain access to that funding if and when it became available.

But okay.

And that's still the case.

So my question was why we thought we needed an ordinance then, but we don't think we need an ordinance now.

Well, I think there's a lot more clarity on what it applies to and and how to approach it.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

And I think building on that, I mean, uh Prop 123 came out, and like you said, Uri was on the forefront.

Yep, as MJ Adams reported many times.

It was hard to tell what was needed to get that funding.

Right.

So we threw something out there.

We made that first GUI pancake as she says.

And it's great if we don't need an ordinance because I'd rather not have one that you don't need.

So if there's no ordinance needed and then we do this joint session.

Are we just going to talk about how we don't need an ordinance as a joint session.

That's my that was talking about comp plan change yes that as well as um some of the larger work plan items that that you all will be seeing in the next year or two.

So it might be uh pretty short on the the code updates for Prop 123 and then but there still probably has to be education from the staff to town council and planning commission on what the details really are.

Yeah there'll be a lot of details in the staff report and then yeah of course opportunity for questions and answers okay any question reef I had a just a question I've heard the term affordable housing with many different definitions and I'm just wondering where is it defined and what is the definition.

So that is the only piece that remained in the code change that got repealed um so it is in our definitions in the UDC.

I can send that to you point you to it but um and then the state um defines it slightly differently of course so you know that that's a point of um exploration with the state as far as um how we would how we would align ours with that.

And how does our UDC define it?

It's in chapter 11.

It is yes let me just 10 three or sorry 10113 terms defined um it's a paragraph of affordable housing project a development in which 12% or more of the total residential units will be restricted by a recorded deed restriction in a form approved by the town as follows a for ownership units initial occupancy shall be restricted to households with incomes at or below 120% of AMI and B for rental units occupancy shall be restricted to households with incomes at or below 80 eight zero percent of AMI.

So are AMI is the area median income and it's different from Weld County and Boulder County and so we have our own uniqueness in that we cross counties and how do we deal with that's a staff question.

Yeah um the um we use boulders yeah and part of the the justification for that is with boulders being higher it does make the number big for that 120% AMI yeah um and one of the justifications that MJ brought to us was um it allows a developer to actually build it with the costs that we have so it is it's a challenge to use that lower number is is how she justified it to us.

So yeah and I do not want to start any conversation with the assumption that I'm passionate about this topic.

I think it's an important topic but uh I am curious um if anyone reacted to the it was particularly explicit in the um private applicant's neighborhood meeting notes I mean they made it prominent that he felt like Uri junction had distorted the market and was going to drive him into bankruptcy.

I mean there's some experience here that that inflated uh Boulder County AMI um allows developers as you point out uh to take money that they're not really helping the people that we would like to help um and I'm just curious if the complexity of this issue is something we you know will have to struggle with I mean or is passion the answer I mean I the since since you want to have a philosophical conversation there it is if you have six hours at the past meetings I well and I'll just add um so the cheeseman residences um is the affordable housing project not Erie junction yeah um so I believe we're at 18 or 19 units sold um the average AMI is um around eighty percent and it is um it does tend to be you know service workers teachers uh first responders but the the average is you just barely qualify and that's who's buying and I would I would argue though too I mean from a developer standpoint if 18% have sold I don't know if using Boulder County um for a higher number is at risk of us developing a bunch of these projects because someone coming in is in my opinion working real estate not as a planning commissioner is just if if 18 or 19% have sold I don't it wasn't percent it was units I mean units I'm sorry but it is a percent though right like it's a it's I mean there's it's over it's a over half right but I'm just saying like I don't I don't know if they're selling at what at least the developers I've spoken

And I would I would argue though, too, I mean, from a developer standpoint, if 18% have sold, I don't know if using Boulder County for a higher number is at risk of us developing a bunch of these projects because someone coming in is in my opinion working in real estate, not as a planning commissioner.

It's just if if 18 or 19% have sold, I don't know.

It wasn't percent, it was units.

I mean units, I'm sorry, but it is a percent though, right?

Like it's a it's I mean there's it's over.

It's over half, right?

But I'm just saying, like I don't I don't know if they're selling at what at least the developers I've spoken to have would it doesn't seem to be reflective in our market at this point that using Boulder County is then the Boulder County AMI is attracting you know these to sell immediately, and then all of these other affordable housing projects.

So I don't know if it the neg that negative viewpoint of using Boulder County AMI is reflective in our market at this point, in my personal opinion.

And it's a ceiling, not a floor.

So it allows developers to do things to build more expensive housing than they would if we use the weld counting numbers.

And so and my understanding what we found with people applying for cheesemen is often they're either just too high or they're just too low.

And so the goal at the time of cheeseman was as a first project, and then we would be able to do things at lower costs moving down, or moving ahead, I guess I should say, but to have the price points relatively and with inflation and stuff figured in come to get to people at lower because she was 90 to 120 was the target, I've thought for AMI.

90 to 120 percent of AMI.

Um it was what's in code, the up to 120 for ownership, right?

Yeah.

And the thought was later on we could maybe do things lower.

Um, I know habitat couldn't bid on cheeseman because it was too high of an AMI.

And so there's a lot of population out there that cannot afford that.

So I understand what you're saying about maybe if we use weld counting, it would force it to be even lower, but that would also significantly reduce the developers.

It was a compromise when it came up.

Any other thoughts?

Commissioner Solish, I don't know if you have a hand up, but um yeah, and uh I don't know if staff or uh vice chair Brodis would know this one, but um the funding that is available, um, from my understanding, a portion of this was guaranteed funding.

The other portion was basically um uh an excess of you know the table reserves essentially, you know, um within that limits.

Um do we know since 60 percent of it is administered by CHAF, 40% is administered by DOLA, what funding is available in terms of if it's that CHAF aside or the DOLA side that is actually able to receive funding for the upcoming year.

I don't know for sure.

My understanding is this was the total pot.

And but so I don't really know the answer to your question.

Okay.

First first step we could find that one out because from my understanding they were supposed to be guaranteed for the CHAPA side, and the DOLA side was basically the one that could get left out.

Um if we could find out what that split is, because there are some potentially some ways that we as the municipality could also go for grants um if we are prop 123 compliant as well.

Um it's not solely on the developer.

The DOLA funding is there.

Um what got uh eliminated with the balancing of the budget was the um the OED affordable housing finance fund, which is land banking.

Um the DOLA Affordable Housing Support Fund, which does down payment and rental assistance, um, and then the DOLA local planning capacity grants are intact.

And for the new commissioners, DOLA's Department of Local Affairs for Colorado Chaffa is I think it's Colorado Housing Finance Authority or something like that.

So the funding that the funding mechanism that would be available to the developers for one of these potential developments may not be there in 2027, but nonetheless, we need to have something in place by the end of 2026, because if I remember correctly, it's um that sets it basically if they're eligible for 27, 28, and 29.

And there's also money available from the state.

If we need funding to create the process, there was some funding available from the state to help offset the costs for developing the process.

Yeah, the local planning capacity grants.

So Erie could get some money out of that.

We missed the last deadline that was in April.

Um I think it's a good idea.

Or just for um I apologize, I'm working off an iPad and it just uh locked me out, so I gotta enter this in.

Um the last time we met um talked about this, the uh that resolution that went to council, but they could not um review because it was a um recommendation for denial with conditions.

It was the second part of that was uh the town council tasked the planning commission to work with town staff and town council were to develop a UDC amendment that addresses the concern concerns identified um and one or more joint study sessions with town council and planning commission.

This shall include creating an application process, which is prop 123 compliant, which allows town council the necessary time to receive and review the community wide survey results, and which allows staff time to work with DOLA to consult uh the DOLA consultant to address outstanding questions.

Um I know the town wide survey was completed.

Um the disjoint study session is now happening.

Has staff received all the answers necessary to make these determinations um in conversations with the Dole consultant that I understand was working with a dozen or so different communities?

Yes, yes, and there will be um information presented on what others in the region are doing um as well.

Okay, the my question would be does it hurt to have a UDC item in there that is specific to the fast track prop one two three compliance that specifically outlines which specific applications can go through that as well as a you know consult the user guide and basically we created another user guide that is applicable solely for these prop 123 compliant applications that that is a possibility, yeah.

Because I'm I'm I there was a lot of ambiguity at first.

I don't think we want to get into ambiguity potentially down the line.

I would say if we want to address this and codify it, figure out a way in terms of what the language is to codify it, but point to that user guide so that user guide could be modified at any point.

So what some of the other um you guys are really getting a preview I just have to say what some of the other municipalities um have done is um adopt resolutions outlining what that that internal process uh change looks like instead of going through um their code and making changes like that.

So um, yeah, it's an option.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, but the the discussion is also um, you know, Erie made this initial commitment, three-year commitment.

We've we've actually met that with the cheesman um residences project, and you know, do we want to basically re-up that um what do we want to do?

So yeah, that's part of the discussion on the second as well.

As in percentage or number of units that we are committing, just like we did back in 2023, I think it was correct.

It has to do with a percent over your current baseline.

Wasn't it like seven units or something like that?

10 units.

It was 15.

And we built what would what do we have to bump it up by per state statute?

Yeah, um, interestingly, there were some recent bills in this legislature.

Haven't been signed yet, so we're still awaiting guidance on that.

Um met with DOLA on Tuesday, and um in June, sometime we will know more.

But probably not June 2nd.

But probably not June 2nd.

Yeah, unfortunately.

Yeah.

Any final thoughts where I close it out?

Just one question.

Um you'd kind of reference the fact that there the state had a potentially different definition of affordable housing.

What is that?

It is maybe make it a yes or no just while you're finding it.

Is it income-based or is it another qualifier entirely?

Uh it is it it relates to AMI, yeah.

Um 60% or lower AMI for rental, 100% or lower for owner occupied.

So 20% county specific.

I'm sorry.

Is it county specific?

Yeah, that's usually how AMI is established.

It's actually statistical area from Department of Labor, I guess.

Kind of census data.

So does that mean that we'd have to change the UDC?

We um that's something to to explore with DOLA further.

Um what that might look like, yeah.

I recall the state was uh a ceiling or a child floor.

Anyway, um we can make it slightly different in the state.

Yeah, does home rule come into that?

That's a good question.

It wouldn't in this situation because this is really the eligibility of state dollars.

So the the state is conditioning the eligibility of home rule and statutory municipalities on meeting certain requirements.

So the town could fund it with whatever money we want and set whatever we want to get state dollars.

We have to do that.

Okay.

Yeah, so it's not really the town funding it.

Right.

It's the state funding it.

Yeah.

Again, the money doesn't go even go through the town, it goes to the developer.

Okay.

So in 2023, we were all asked to meet these um commitments.

And now are they asking us to look at those numbers again?

Or is that all up to each municipality?

Every every municipality can decide if they want to commit again.

And for how long?

It's every three years you have to recommit.

And like Longmont didn't get money last year or this year because they didn't meet the target.

So you um you have to both commit and meet your target.

And the target is again based on a percentage above what you currently have.

And eerie is for better or worse, very low right now.

Increase significantly by achievement.

Okay.

Great.

I think we'll have uh a good discussion.

I think we know a little bit more.

Yeah, I'm looking forward to Sarah and Josh's yes uh commentary.

Yep.

So time is now 8 35 p.m.

and we've concluded general business.

We'll move to a staff reports.

No specific agendas.

Do you have anything for us?

Um, yeah, I just wanted to introduce everyone.

Jaime Medina has joined us.

He's our new planning technician, shadowing Melinda today.

Um and then just another reminder of three meetings back to back.

I am so sorry.

Uh June 1st, the onboarding and CERSA training, and then June 2nd, the joint session with council, and June 3rd is a regular meeting.

That one we don't have any public hearings on, and there's only a couple of items, so hopefully it'll be kind of short.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think the advanced agenda is what's the chair election and something I refer to.

I just had it open.

The annual report.

Oh, yeah.

That's coming up in July.

So that's it.

All right.

Time is now 8 30 6 p.m.

And we'll go to commission reports and discussion.

You got something about others.

I don't have anything.

Commissioner Solish in the sky.

Just wanted to uh say thank you to staff and uh and the chair for allowing me to attend virtually.

Sure.

I'll enjoy your vacation.

Yeah.

Enjoy being out.

Uh any other reports?

One discussion.

I I have no report.

I I hope you enjoyed the virtual cookies.

Appreciate meeting with everyone.

I was gonna welcome the new members again.

And the reminder, I guess it's passed for completing the security training.

I must have finished it.

There's a security training, and I know there's a code of conduct that needs to be reviewed.

Yes.

Yes, yeah.

The bill need to be signed, and I'm assuming the new members are gonna get that as well.

Yeah, you're not passed to you.

Yeah, yeah.

Um and I think for me, you covered that again.

Welcome and uh looking forward to first week of June.

A lot of time together.

All right, that concludes all the items on our agenda.

Commissioner Booth.

It's not up for debate.

Motion to adjourn.

Second.

All right.

Time is now 8:38 p.m.

and we are adjourned.