If you'd like to count us down.

I now call the Wednesday, July first planning commission meeting to order.

The time is six thirty.

You could please rise for the pledge of allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America.

Could the Secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth?

Here.

Commissioner Leaf present.

Vice Chair Dreckman.

Here.

Chair Sowish?

Here.

Commissioner Schatz?

Here.

Commissioner Rodis.

Here.

Commissioner Hemphill.

Here.

You have a quorum?

We have an agenda before us.

Does staff have any changes?

No changes.

Is there a motion?

Motion.

Second.

That was a s uh motion by Booth and a second by Dreckman.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Uh this leads us now to the approval of the minutes of the point of order.

Please.

Uh you need to call the vote.

You need to announce that the uh vote passed.

That that was a pass unanimous.

Um that moves us on to the approval of the minutes uh for the June seventeenth planning commission meeting.

Um is there a any changes that need to be made?

Motion to approve.

Second.

That was a motion from Pemphill and a second by Brodus.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Aye.

All right, that is unanimous.

That now leads us to the public comments portion of the meeting.

Is there anybody signed up or online?

There does not appear to be anyone signed up or online.

Okay.

All right.

Um that now leads us to the general business items.

Uh the first one is 2026 400 discussion of annual report to town council.

And I will be presenting that, so I'm gonna hop over there real quickly.

Um you got the diaspora.

All good.

Okay, last time I did not speak into the mic, so um okay.

So the first item that we have is uh planning commission annual report to the town council.

Um last time we had some minor changes that we wanted to make, so I'm just gonna go through the changes unless there's anything that anybody wants to bring up.

Um first let me actually do a pres present of this.

Um the first item that we had changed was there was uh individual from planning staff, which was uh removed, a new one was added.

So welcome, Daryl.

Thank you.

And we'll have July 2026 on in the next uh report to council.

And we had also the next couple slides the same thing.

And the only additional item that was added on here was uh the informational presentation introdue Town Hall 101, and that brings us to um everything through June of 2026.

And then for this slide, we had said we were striking the capacity column.

And um obviously then removed out uh item D that was at the bottom for notes because we no longer need it with capacity column removed.

And I believe that is everything.

Um additional changes that would need to be made questions, comments?

One extremely minor change, please.

On the slide three, the font for Tim Burns is term ending is slightly bigger than that.

Slightly it is I could I can I can make that change.

Uh if anybody has any disagreements uh or if anybody is okay with that.

All good.

Thank you.

Um any other comments, questions, feedback.

Okay.

And um obviously this isn't something that we are going to take an official vote on, but if anybody has um any qualms or objections to this being presented, could you please speak now or forever hold your peace?

All right.

Looks good.

I I appreciate the discussion we had.

Definitely.

Yeah.

All right.

So that is that.

Uh so staff, I'll make that update and then I'll send that over so that it can get posted to the clerk's office and look at us.

We're nine days ahead of where we need to be.

Okay.

I'm gonna okay.

We'll conclude that agenda item and then move on to our next one, which is 2026-401 discussion and preparation of joint study session with council.

And I will let Chair Sowich talk to us about that.

All right, Andrew Sowish, uh planning commissioner for the town of Erie.

Planning chair for the town of Erie.

Sorry.

Um, all right.

So this uh wasn't able to get posted in time for the agenda due to the deadlines required for staff for internal re approvals.

So this will be added to the July 15th meeting.

It'll be posted.

Uh, there will be a follow-up item after the two QJ items, just in case there's any other comments, questions, things that we wanted to bring up, because that'll be our last opportunity to actually discuss it.

Um last week I was able to uh I was able to get the list of items that staff had confirmed those with Mayor Moore, and we now have the topics, uh, and I'm gonna say tentative because this of course could potentially change, but the tentative list of items that will be um that will be discussed for our joint study session with town council on July 28th.

21st.

Sorry.

So first one is the Prop 123 fast track um overview, the fast track process, funding feedback, then we'll have the comprehensive plan amendment update.

This is one that was requested by council, and we'll go into it in just a moment.

Um, we'll also then have an update provided by planning development in regards to the 2026-2027 work plan, and then we'll have a uh we'll have time at the end for the planning commission roles and responsibilities.

So I'm gonna go through this.

A lot of this again is informational.

If anybody has any questions, um staff, please keep me honest.

If there's anything that I miss or should add, please let me know.

Um, this is to help the commission refresh where we were in these conversations as well as for the two new appointments.

Um a way to get up to speed.

I know it's not gonna be as as in-depth as we went on some of these, but uh hopefully it helps you.

If you have any questions, please ask.

This is the time to do so.

So uh we'll start with Prop 123.

So just as some uh background, um the town of Erie in 1999, they established the Erie Housing Authority.

So this is Title 29 of Colorado revised statute that was used.

Typically, this is used by counties to create a housing authority, but the town created this because of an initiative that they had, which was in uh 2001, the Victor F.

Smith Senior Housing Units, which are on the north end of BRICS.

This was the first attempt by the town for affordable housing, and it was town owned land that was that was provided over.

Um, it did change hands in terms of ownership uh as well as who managed the properties, but to this day, um, it is still 12 units senior housing that is within the town.

Um around that same time, so 2005.

So we had uh comp plan in 1998, 1999.

It was then with uh had some updates in 2005, technical updates in 2015, the 2005 and 2015 comprehensive plan both noted that there should be additional strategies to increase the supply of attainable housing.

So this was not in regards to affordable housing.

It was understanding that we needed something that could reach these different um age ranges, uh, income levels, those kinds of things at that time, just um the that diversity in terms of the stock.

In 2020, uh the then Board of Trustees, they uh had a resolution where they adopted the Boulder County Regional Housing Partnerships priorities and strategies for expanding access to diverse housing for our community.

That was the actual title, so that's why it's a run-on.

Um, and I'll get into that in a moment and explain what that was.

Then in 2021, they mirrored that in terms of a town goal, which then brought us to 2022 and 2023, the development of the housing needs assessment and the affordable housing strategy.

This is when at the state level there was a lot of conversation that was occurring and a lot of legislation that began to move towards affordable housing.

So I'm gonna stop and ask staff.

Is there anything that I missed?

Anything within the timeline or anything to add?

Uh no, I don't have anything to add.

Okay.

Trying to be as thorough as possible, but I'm I know I'm missing some things, so please keep me honest.

So that brought us to that Boulder County Regional Housing Partnership.

So this was a collaboration of 10 jurisdictions within Boulder County, and it was set to establish a goal of 12% of the region's housing inventory permanently affordable by 2035.

And if you ask what is permanently affordable mean, it is no more than 30% of monthly income or rent and utilities, or in the case of monthly mortgage payment of housing expenses, where there is a long-term restriction in place, so deed restriction or likewise to make sure that that stays affordable.

Um there's uh the plan itself that you can go into, but uh the plan at that time was establish a regional goal, bolster financial resources, secure land developments, preserve affordability, and then consider regulatory processes.

So it was pretty comprehensive in terms of how to get to that point.

We then had that housing needs assessment.

This was looking at it comprehensively looking throughout the town in terms of what was our current stock, what are the different gaps that we have, um, taking into account what some of the state or national trends look like, and basically trying to identify what does it look like in Erie, because a lot of the development that has occurred in town has always been residential.

Now, is that single family?

Is it multifamily, et cetera?

Um, if you haven't read it, I know uh most some of you were on the commission when the comp plan moved through, and that was part of uh some of the items that you looked at, but it was very thorough.

That was uh consultant who had done that.

It took a, I want to say like nine months to complete.

It was you know pretty in depth on what they were doing.

Um, and then uh obviously they came back with these key takeaways, lack of diversity in the communities housing stock, more to more housing choice for local workers and aging homeowners, high development costs, density and public subsidies likely required, and then to explore connected strategies.

Part of this housing assessment also looked at that goal of the 12% by 2035.

And I believe the number was 400 units per year in order for us to meet that ourselves in in the town of Urie.

And again, the reason was because we only had 12 units, and that was the Victor Smith um location that I had gone through a moment ago.

So at that time we said, well, we can't get to a point where we're gonna have 12% of our stock by 2035 here in the town, but we can try to make a dent.

So then Prop 123 moved through.

So this was a ballot initiative that was approved by the voters of Colorado in November of 2022.

Um it set a dedicated fund that would be used for the purpose of affordable housing, attainable housing initiatives, et cetera.

Um the fund allocation was or is 40% to the Department of Local Affairs, 60% to the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, which is administered by CHAFA, and this is a dedicated uh fund that is um that 0.1% of the state income tax revenue.

It was already existing and got extended to encompass that.

The funding provides then grants, loans uh for nonprofits, community land trusts, um, local governments, and of course, each program has its own application process, program guidelines, selection criteria.

So there are specific reasons for having the DOLA and specific reasons for having the OEDIT CHAFA.

There are two different purposes.

So there could be some crossover occasionally, but typically it's one is for the renters' home buyers versus one is for those who help develop these different housing affordability or attainable housing initiatives within within community statewide.

I know I just went through that pretty quick.

Steph, anything to add on that so far?

No.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um after this was approved, the question was well, how do we make it so that we have the guidance provided?

How do we actually have the statutes related to this so that we can enforce it to basically broadly understand what was identified as the whole purpose, but how do we make this actionable itself?

So, of course, there are five items on here, some Senate bills, some house bills, and these were to move the the ability, move uh jurisdictions as well as you know, CHAFN to a place where they could start to have this as a mechanism used for again affordable housing, attainable housing.

So now we come to the town and how we used it.

Um I know there's a bunch of links.

I know I wasn't expecting anybody to get through all these links, but um basically when this occurred, we used ARPA funds for an acquisition of 765 Cheeseman Street uh County Line Cheesman.

Um, we then later also got a DOLA grant through Prop 123 that was able to uh facilitate the development costs.

Basically, we were able to buy down the development costs for the developer in order to drive that cost as as far down as possible.

In June 2023, we uh acquired the property at 3942 County County Road uh one and a half.

This is uh now the page property, um, was at one point the uh it was uh village at Cole Creek uh proposed.

In order to as the legislation started to move down the path of how do we make this enforceable actionable, um we started to see what was occurring, and I believe we were one of the first municipalities in the state to actually have an ordinance that actually proposed a fast track or administrative review process.

Um there are other items in there that included some density bonuses.

Uh the idea was that to get to this point.

Um, if somebody were to bring in affordable housing, I think it was uh 12%, we said at the time.

Um, if they brought 12% affordable housing, they would have the ability to get to some of these expedited review processes.

Um we then had a resolution to approve the pre-development agreement, which is where we actually transferred the land over to Housepad Erie so that they could begin development over there.

And then we had um the resolution that was adopted in uh 2024.

Uh, this actually came before the planning commission at that uh just before that as well, um, adopting the updated housing needs assessment, affordable housing strategy, uh resolution adopting the town of Erie affordable housing policy, and then there was also the resolution approving the development agreement accepting dedication.

So everything had been deeded over to that developer, and now the town was um was uh suffice with what was occurring over there so that they could actually have build out start to occur.

And then last year in August, uh from the request of council, um ordinance 23 2025 was uh approved.

Um, this is one that we saw as well, and that repealed uh ordinance 17, 2023, but we left the definition of affordable housing.

So um when we look at the items that were brought up by council in terms of why we did a repeal, because again, this is all about the fast track process.

Um, it was identified that there were concerns with some elements within the process that it could skip some steps in what a typical application would would require.

Now, grant as staff had been the first to say, hey, we were really early on this.

We had started this right when the Prop 123 funding was announced, and we wanted to be able to get after that as quickly as possible.

And it was still that legislation was moving through.

So that was August 2025.

You can see we've had things as recent as April of this year, where they're still trying to make it so that this prop 123 is actionable, enforceable, and has everything laid out.

So now comes to us on the Prop 123 side where we had the um the recommendation to council that we provided last year.

We took the uh 60 days that is provided within the UDC to discuss this item instead of immediately providing a recommendation for approval or denial.

We took the time to talk this out to then come up with a resolution.

Um it just so happened that the resolution we created was one that was denial with conditions, which it can only be approved, approved with conditions or denial.

So they weren't even able to look at it.

Um I know we had uh updates from staff last time uh three meetings ago now.

Um, but from my understanding and confirm if this is the case, the information that we have received now from the state from the consultant that was uh aiding multiple uh municipalities.

We may not actually need an ordinance update, but we'll find out more about that at the study session, correct?

Correct.

Okay.

So before we get on to the next item, I'm gonna stop because I know that was a lot.

It's probably you know, just uh word vomit everywhere.

Um does anybody have any questions, comments, anything that you can think of that we might want to discuss before we you know go into that uh July meeting with with uh with council.

Would it be possible for us to get the consultant's report to review before the meeting?

Um before, I mean it will be included in the packet information.

Yeah, which will be given to us like three days before.

Is it possible to get it sooner or probably not?

I'm looking at Josh.

If you last we heard it's not supposed to be available until the end of July, so it's okay for our session.

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I thought you had it now.

So I'm gonna put you on the spot.

Would you would you mind coming to the podium?

Thank you.

Thanks, Josh.

Josh Campbell, senior strategic planner for the town of Erie.

Um we have met with the consultant uh several times throughout this process, and last week spoke, they were supposed to be finalizing the official report for us to distribute in July.

Um so I do not know at this point in time if we'll have it uh at least before our discussion.

However, we have had a verbal confirmation with them through meetings of one off.

Thanks.

Thanks, Josh.

Uh please uh just a refresher.

Uh I think it was my first meeting we were having a conversation on this topic, and in terms of conforming to the Prop 123 funding eligibility criteria, I think we had concluded at that meeting that the ordinance that was repealed was no longer necessary.

Is that a fair summary of where we're at?

Like we're only forward looking in terms of prop 123, or is there correct remedial work that needs to be correct?

Okay.

That's probably worth putting in your summary somewhere with the for the joint session.

Um well uh staff is gonna be coming up with a presentation for the joint session.

It's gonna have a lot more information than than I have in very specific.

Um but that that was my understanding uh from what we had heard uh comments from from staff saying, it looks like it's the administrative process and basically front loading the pre-application side.

Once we get to that point, we know everything is good, then that shot clock starts and we can begin the 90-day process.

90 days, which still I don't understand how you're gonna do it, but if you say you can have it right.

That's a key point.

Yeah, yeah.

Um go ahead, please.

Uh the other item that I just wanted to bring up is like you said, we did take that 60 days to I think we had three meetings or something on this.

Um, and we did quite a little bit of deliberation with our uh resolution that was a denial with I already forgot the phrase.

But I think there was a lot of value in that discussion, so at least um bringing that resolution up because that brought up a lot of the concerns, even though there's not going to be a forward ordinance.

Uh just being aware of because I think we captured a lot of the concerns that the council had.

Um but just making sure that everyone here is aware of that resolution that we had from effectively a previous commission, I think it was uh it was good discussion that we had.

Yeah, I think I I I would I would agree.

Um it was it wasn't at the one that we draft we were drafting the resolution or you know the proposed draft that uh that um commissioner Brodis had had done.

It was the meeting before where we just you know went in depth on everything.

So um spoiler, if you if you want to try to get up to speed on the discussion, please uh review that that meeting.

Um but yeah, I'll send the links out to you.

Um it was it was a very good discussion, and um it it it does make me think one of the things that we had was that administrative review, and you are able to receive that bonus density.

Is that something that we still wanted to potentially have because it was a carrot versus a stick situation?

We provide them the carrot, you get the bonus if you bring this to the town, and I believe um a lot of the uh concern at the time for repealing was we have nothing that is on the books as a incentive to bring affordable housing.

Sure, you can you know get access to these grants and you know other things, but you're not you're not guaranteed to receive that.

So um, and plus from what I believe staff had said, well, we had thought the preliminary plat, um preliminary plat, rezonings, uh subdivision uh general subdivision, like those don't apply in in some cases.

Now it's only specific applications.

So the question is is that something that we potentially want to bring up during the joint study session to say, do we want to have an incentive that works for the town?

The idea of the you know 25% density if you bring um you know X amount.

Do we want to have that?

When we're looking at prop 123, this is if they come in with 50% affordable housing, they are now required as per the state to have a an expedited process.

So this is not going to be in every situation.

What happens if they come with 40%?

Well, they're not applicable to that.

Do we still want to maybe say you can go through this process?

Um again, do we want to have density bonuses?

So these are ideas that if this body was inclined to move forward on and wanted to bring this up, we could do so at that time so that we could discuss this with council.

And I know during my discussions with DOLA, it was you must have a fast track, as you were saying, if it's 50%.

They were encouraging a fast track and they had no minimum.

I thought the minimum was 12, but it wasn't.

Or you could have fast track.

But things have changed too, it seems, since that time.

And so it'd be really nice to understand what those changes are.

But I guess that would be in the consultant's report, so we have to wait.

Yeah.

I'm sure more will change before it even gets to that date.

So to your point, I think having incentives would be good because Erie right now has even if you include the 35 units from cheeseman, uh, which would meet our commitment for around seven years, I think.

Um for the three percent growth.

Uh I I think it would be good to have an incentive because we have virtually no workforce housing in Erie today.

And um, I'm gonna actually turn to staff.

I know uh Mr.

Scill, you had provided some information regarding the commitment um that we had met it, even though it was 22 that were currently sold um because of the state's determination that it has to be under 100% AMI, and some aren't actually under 100%.

It's not 22 that is going towards that commitment, it's slightly under that.

Uh Josh.

Again, Josh Campbell, senior strategic planner.

Um to date, we have um sorry, I'm doing math.

Uh to date we have 23 of the 35 cheeseman units sold.

Uh with that being said, we do have three that are scheduled to close within the coming week.

26 sold, including the ones coming in the coming weeks.

21 of those will meet DOLA's requirement of 100% or less AMI.

The other five units are above 100%, but are below the 120% limits that the Cheesman Street residents list.

Okay.

Thank you.

So Commissioner Brodus to your point.

Yes, we met our commitment.

However, not all of them meet the state's definition of the commitment.

And that's that's the struggle that we get into.

And also if you know you always talk about having that incentive so that they can get access to these grants and whatnot.

Well, what happens if you have two applicants that are from different municipalities?

One is saying, hey, we're gonna provide 80% AMI up to 80%, the other one is 120.

And they only can give this to one because there's only so much money.

Which one could they potentially give it to?

You know, I you know, you turn towards the 80%.

So this, even though staff has done a great job, you know, there's still a lot of questions.

So I would ask in regards to this topic in particular, if there's additional questions, additional topics that we want to bring up during that joint study session, please let us know because this is our time to ask these questions so that staff can either advise us um or provide an answer to it, or they could potentially look into it because this is not going to be end of it.

Uh Commissioner Leaf.

Yeah, I'd like to echo what Commissioner Broad has said about um incentives other than an expedited process.

Um I I'd certainly like to understand what the menu of options would be, because certainly we're not um inventing the wheel here.

Um this is something that other um jurisdictions are grappling with, have tried um in other instances.

And I think it it would be really helpful to understand kind of what the best practices are and what what's been successful and what hasn't been successful.

Um I I will say, you know, uh we're how we got to this point.

So, you know, going back over here, you know 88% single unit detached.

That was because um that was what the market had dictated.

It was single family, and and this was a prime area for uh for those.

Then the market started shifting, and that's when we started seeing the alley load of products.

We started seeing some uh quadplexes, some duplexes, some townhomes.

I think it was multifamily started coming into so the town does the monthly development activity where it indicates how many units are actually how many units uh were brought online within the community, how many were built essentially.

Um we didn't have multifamily listed until I think it was 2021, 2022.

So I mean, it was we just didn't have anything that was that was there because nobody was bringing these online, even though we have in the UDC, you have to have um a certain amount of diversity of product, you have to have different architectural styles, you know, those kinds of things.

They would propose one type in different styles and just change how that type was looking.

So like it it met the criteria of the UDC, but a lot of these they would say, yeah, we'll add this in here.

Um, Erie Highlands, Colliers Hill, um, Flat Iron Meadows, all of them basically said, Yeah, we'll give another product, but it was at the very tail end of the project.

That's when you start to see all these different property uh property types and and number units starting to come online because they first did single family and then the market shifted, and finally at the end, they brought these on.

So I've personally been an advocate saying how do we enforce density um and diversity of homes, so that it's not just hey, you have to have diversity when it's all filled out.

How do we maintain that diversity of product as we go through?

Because when we talk about attainable housing, that is a wide range of different uh styles and you know, price points essentially, so that we can't have first seniors, first-time home buyers, um, and and so on.

Yeah, unfortunately, the three neighborhoods you talk to, none of them are affordable or by definition affordable.

And so another thing we should look at, and we started when we had staff, but the staff is no longer around, is looking at infill is another area where you could potentially have things that would be more affordable.

So that's something I would at least bring up.

And that was uh the housing needs assessment said that that was one of the key things that should be taken into account um in fill development so that we start filling out these areas that are um you know old town, um, some of the empty, you know, lots that are within the central area, so we don't have that sprawl that occurs.

So um there was the uh the fiscal analysis that was also um taken into account at that time and basically said that there's going to be a lot of capital needs as time goes on because as that sprawl occurs, you have more roads, you have you know more miles that are actually being driven on versus we have you know in dense areas where maybe there's uh you know public transit or filling in these areas so that it's not you have to drive everywhere to get to get you know somewhere, and I guess that is how it is in Colorado in general, but um that was one of the recommendations.

Yeah, I just wanted to share.

I attended a um a seminar sponsored by the American Institute of Architects a couple months ago where the city of Denver presented um actually it was a contest around affordable housing, and um the conversation that was led by the Denver City planners um was related to a uh consultant that they're working with to redefine their development code.

And so they were dealing with issues of accessory drawing units, they were dealing with density incentives, um, and I think um there's probably a lot that we could learn from what they're doing uh in terms of how that might be applicable to our community.

Yeah, and you you bring up ADUs.

Uh ADUs are permitted everywhere throughout the state, essentially, in all residential areas now.

So that was something that uh they said it was a um a state issue of concern, and um we cannot prohibit correct me if I'm wrong, we cannot prohibit ADUs in any residential areas anymore.

Yeah, anywhere that a single family home is allowed.

So um I would just add um I think it's all great discussion.

Um for the joint session, we do have two, we have two hours.

We have um four big topic areas to cover, and I think our hope was to um really hone in on the Prop 123 commitment, and you know, we can explore any other you know, incentive code changes and things with the um the UDC update that'll be taking off this fall in a more comprehensive way.

So yeah.

Yeah, I know a lot of what we're gonna be doing with council is talking and discussing and getting informed on these, and then we'll go back and you know, ourselves will we'll talk about it more, and then staff will basically come with this plethora of options and presentations for us.

So um, yeah, I I totally understand.

And um, maybe some of this that we're talking about just becomes you know food for thought for for you all.

So yeah.

Okay.

Anything else before we move on to the next topic?

Okay.

So I'm actually gonna ask Mr.

School if you can just uh clarify what this comprehensive plan amendment uh high-level summary is that was requested by council and why it's coming.

I obviously we're gonna receive more information, but um just high level.

Yeah, um, you'll see this in August.

Um January of this year, we got feedback from council that they wanted us to look at um select parcels that were designated residential medium in the uh 2024 plan.

Um specifically um the parcel at 1111th and Arapahoe, the page property.

Um is there one other one, Josh?

I'm so sorry Josh Campbell, senior strategic planner.

Uh yes, there was uh three parcels that were examined with this um amendment suggestion from council.

Um Mr.

Oscill mentioned the uh first two, the other one was about four and a half acres um southwest of old town, uh kind of the intersection of high and anderson, uh adjacent to Winnier Park.

Yeah.

Yeah, so they wanted to examine that for a new residential uh category, residential medium low, and so that would be um a kind of in an intermediary um designation between residential low and residential medium.

And so that would be um a kind of in an intermediary um designation between residential low and residential medium.

Um they did provide um feedback in May on the page property, so that will change from any sort of housing to to the parks open space protected lands designation.

And then um we've had some zoning cases and other uh preliminary plats and things come forth that you know, maybe on the edges of towns, surrounded by some rural or agricultural development, and um they wanted to see a little bit more policy on some context sensitive design.

So yeah.

Um so three of those properties, um, three properties, one of them being town owned, two being privately owned.

Um so essentially uh this kicks off the community engagement process, not to the extent that we did last time.

Um community engagement process, which is required by statute.

Um it includes the notifications when the time comes, uh discussions with the property owners, all to culminate in the amendment of, and if I understand it correctly, basically uh it's a uh what low low medium, I guess.

It's like just inside of the mid medium residential, um, just past low residential, basically the equivalent of the previous that we had or like kind of similar, yeah.

Yeah, yeah.

So it would result in basically a map update and then one small addition to policy in the uh community building box chapter.

Okay.

Um so I know we've talked about some potential updates, uh additional additional updates.

Um obviously this scope of this specific update that staff is gonna be informing us on is you know what was been discussed.

Um I know that we again have talked about some items.

I think it would be good for us ourselves to have some discussions for a future amendment.

Obviously, with a comprehensive plan, it is supposed to be the vision of the town, but it's it's supposed to be something that is malleable and that is iterative that continues to be improved upon or updated over time.

Um so without going into other items that haven't just been noted as what are going to be the highlights of what this update is gonna be.

Um are there any questions, comments, feedback related to those?

Okay.

Okay, so um we'll then also have uh the 2026-2027 planning development work plan um that uh Ms.

Triskel and team are gonna go over and again, Ms.

Triscal, if you could just high-level exactly what this is.

Uh yeah, so there will be several large projects that you all will be very involved with in our work plan for this year and into next.

Um the unified development code update, um, some short-term rental regulations and licensing, um, obviously the comp plan updates, um, some old town visioning exercises.

We do have to do a housing action plan as well.

Um, so those those big things will be coming to you, as well as um in tandem with parks, um, some open space uh rezoning investigations that will be starting in 2027.

Okay, so um I know a lot of what we've we've done to date as a planning commission, UDC updates, comprehensive plans, QJ and them.

So um there will be moving forward some specific UDC items, um, say, you know, we're we're gonna have a uh I don't know if you know we can say what it is that's gonna be in Boulder, but you know, uh kind of like you know, the the big game in February, you know, if it's one of those, but uh you know, we're we're gonna have a lot of needs next year for uh the film festival.

And there have been a lot of individuals that have been asking even online saying, how can I have this unit available for individuals for when it comes to town?

And the short answer is you can't in Erie.

So um it's long term or nothing here.

So this is something that is a long time coming.

Um, yes, there are individuals on Airbnb, um, VRBO, but we do not allow short-term rentals in the town of Erie.

So we are basically going to have to address that sooner than later, and there's uh an immediate need to do that.

Um, and then obviously we talked about this other item that is going to be uh that we have proposed the joint study session with OSTAB.

Um I uh did um talk with the Ostab chair, and they are gonna again.

I know I said this last time, but they hadn't met yet.

Um they're gonna be at their next meeting talking about this.

I did re-watch their meeting two meetings ago when they found out about all this that hey, we have zero properties that are currently with the reserve open open space.

Um so we're still trying to coordinate to see if it is possible to have uh October, November joint study session.

Obviously, they have to accept and approve it first on their end, say yes, let's do that.

And then also um for staff, we don't want to be a burden on them.

Um, I know during the OSTEM meeting.

Um Parks and Rec Director uh uh Bollinger had said we have time restraints on our side.

Um we have other projects going on.

This is definitely a 2027 on our side, and parks has to be the lead on it over there.

So um we're still trying to work out to try to get that October November joint study session with OSTAB to not to come up with these are the properties, these are the ones that are going to um, but instead to say, what are the different nuances?

How can we address this?

What do we have to take into account so that staff when they do start this, they have all this already addressed, attended to, and basically uh, you know, they provide the list of properties.

OSTAB is understanding of what the difference is between the two.

Um, there's been conjecture about whether or not we actually whether our reserve open space and the uses that are currently available there are what we need.

Um obviously it's charter designated for uh reserve open space, so it is um in perpetuity uh unable to be sold, dispositioned, um, anything of that effect unless it's brought to a uh vote of the residents.

And so that's been one of the things that has been discussed.

Is it even within the right use categories that we want?

So there's a lot going a lot of discussion that can that can occur, but again, it's gonna be a brainstorming.

It's not to say, hey, staff start on this because there's no way they're going to.

So any questions, comments, feedback on this item.

See some gears moving, but no questions.

Okay.

Okay, so this now gets us to um this item.

And we've had um 2020, 2021.

We had conversations about this.

Um, it's been brought up in every single presentation to council, I think, since 2021 of discussion of what are the roles and responsibilities.

What else can we do?

So obviously we just uh had that slide that we were going through for the um presentation to council showing, hey, we've had a lot of canceled meetings.

There's other things that we've had identified as we could potentially do, not something that is, if you will, actionable even.

Maybe it's something that is informative for us, educational for us, so that we can grow our knowledge and expertise as you know, the planning commission.

Um obviously uh roles and responsibilities, revised statutes, um home road charter, the code, the roles and responsibilities within the UDC.

Um, and then I have obviously a lot of links here.

Um basically we have a council that is amenable to this conversation.

We have a planning commission, a previous planning commission, a previous planning commission that is amenable to having this conversation.

So I know I toss a lot in here just as some of the items that we have discussed, um, some background information.

Um what I want to do is I I I want to I want to stop talking and I I want it so that everybody else is talking.

So roles and responsibilities.

When we've talked about this, it's always been hey, this may not be within our wheelhouse, it may be something that is outside of our current breadth, maybe something that we just have to learn.

So I know we've again had these conversations.

Does anybody have um thoughts questions, feedback, anything that comes to mind when we talk roles and responsibilities?

Please.

Sure.

Uh first of all, this dovetails with the earlier item where we're reporting to the town council uh workload.

Um that's gonna be my kind of summary of of the important data provided in that report.

Uh and then you look at this table.

So maybe back up one.

Is that where the table is?

Yeah.

Um I'm I'm not gonna say I I know what the relationship is yet.

I haven't been involved in this process for more than three meetings.

But this table is the key, I think, to a discussion that can be productive and can talk about well, how does this compare with other jurisdictions and what their planning commission does?

How does this table compare with the workload that we're seeing on planning commission and where we could do more?

That's probably where I would start with the conversation with the town council.

But that said, I don't have enough experience to say I know the answer to the question is because we don't get involved in initial zonings.

That's an interesting choice on this table to me, is that the planning commission would normally be, or in my experience involved in initial zoning.

Uh it streamlines the process that we're not, and the town council is the one that makes the decision on annexation.

Uh but that's a point.

There's other jurisdictions where special use review is uh bifurcated into, for example, Adams County special use, conditional use.

They're more and less intense between those categories.

There's some choices there.

But I I this table, I just want to say from my perspective is a key to a productive conversation.

And I will have more observations and just background.

Uh, but I'm not sure what the direction is yet.

Just wanted to offer that.

Okay.

So if I understand correctly, it's basically saying, okay, within what we currently do, where else within um the UDC specifically can we have an effect?

Right.

And I uh a rapid hole 11th is a perfect example because you're correct.

Um the annexation initial zoning was a legislative matter, so the annexation got approved, but then the initial zoning was not approved.

But that did not come before this body.

Right.

And I know that could have helped with the um you know the public hearing process, the community outreach, you know, individuals to voice their concern before it was uh six hours of testimony that we heard from the residents.

So, Mr.

Chair, if I I may, I think my offer is this is my observation today.

I will develop more of those type of observations for your consideration, this body's consideration to walk in with a productive conversation, if that's the will of you know the board here.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, sure.

Were you gonna say something, Commissioner Booth?

Um, so I think we've talked about the zoning examples from other um communities.

I feel like maybe you've given examples of is it Greeley?

Do they do some of the zoning on the planning commission there?

Um that is and that's just clarification because I think we've talked about that a little bit.

Uh let's see.

This was actually uh there was a full list that was done in the past September 2021.

And yes.

Okay, uh so full transparency.

I was the one who um initially did this in 2021 when we started having these conversations.

Um let's see, it was Greeley.

Um I believe Greeley did do um initial zonings.

I I will say um well uh specific to the UDC and the applications.

Well County is a good example where they have their planning commission take the authority route on approval for CERN applications, kind of like we have one single one, which is a site plan planning commission review.

Um they also do that and they purposely do that so that they don't get into some legal issues there.

Um the there's been conversations about well, what if we have something where it's planning commission approval, but any of the items can be called up by council.

Um so that's similar in nature to what they do in Well County.

So they have CERN applications where it's the planning commission approves it, but if necessary, the uh Board of County Commissioners can call it up and bring it forward for an ultimate decision, so not a final decision, an ultimate decision.

Um right now it's you know recommendation um for approval or now that's essentially what we do.

Um and yes, they do.

So they will review um you know annexation of land or you know, initial zoning at that time.

Um because there's a lot that goes into it, however, um, and I can't speak for what the town town attorney's office feels now.

But at that time, um the town at the former town attorney believe that that was a legislative matter, and basically if it is something that is legislative, it should always and in some cases only go to the governing body for approval.

So that's potentially something where we could you know have that discussion.

And I say that because there's also the comp plan amendment, and I know um for a while we just we didn't have any comp plan amendments in terms of that zoning map because there were some disagreements in terms of the public hearing process, and so from 2021 to 2025, but I don't think we had a or 2024, we didn't have a single comp plan amendment in terms of that map.

Prior to that, we had multiple frequently.

So maybe it's something that um you know the the town attorney's office feels could be something that we could do.

Ultimately, yes, it's gonna be an ask of the council, but also we need to have our legal team say why or why not.

Is this or isn't is this not a good idea, right?

So there may be a reason that we're unaware of why we don't get involved in the initial zoning or the annexations.

Um yes, annexation and initial zoning happen at the same time because that's what our UDC says.

Um, but it doesn't necessarily mean we should, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't.

So please I so can I just go back to my question?

Sure.

And I I thank you for this link uh because your work back in 2021 uh directly on point.

Um and certainly if other jurisdictions are doing it, um, you know, there is while it's not our council, not our uh jurisdiction, there is some of that preliminary work to vet, you know, is it even legal?

Uh so I I just want to go back to the question of is there any interest in I'd love to tag team with you on let's make this a tabular, like maybe let's put this in a um order of priority that maybe dovetails with what we're seeing from workload, um, and then bring it to the commission for consideration prior to the meeting with the town council.

Is there interest?

Yep.

And I, you know, I I will I will say for the you know, first off, annexation initial zoning, it's basically the peripheries around the town now, right?

I think uh there's three major properties within central uh of you know our boundaries that aren't currently annexed.

Everything else that isn't annexed is now on the peripherals.

So we're talking about unincorporated um areas that are at the edges of town.

We just had the north annexation that occurred uh 2023, I believe it was of the umosha road area.

Um, but a lot of now annexation initial zoning is gonna be elsewhere, and it cannot be on the south end because that is basically uh hard line in the sand with Lafayette.

So please.

Yeah, so I'm asking broadly um and and just to uh clarify uh for example from your link here, review of urban renewal site plans.

I think I've been exposed just enough to say whatever you found here in, and again, this isn't tabular, so one of the things I'm offering is like let's put in a table room field, sends those to the planning commission.

Uh I don't believe that occurs in Erie.

So broadly speaking, not talking about any one category, but you know, broadly speaking, what are the differences between our table of responsibilities between different staff level and boards and commissions types of projects and other jurisdictions?

I mean, I I just think that might be instructive, but I don't know if that's the sense of the commission.

I agree.

I I don't see a problem with it.

Does anyone else see a problem with that?

I think that's more easy.

Andrew you're fine, or Chair Sauish, you're fine uh doing that.

Yeah, like working on that with him, I think.

And is everyone else on word with that too?

Just to review before we meet with that the only comment.

It's 2021.

Um if there are any changes.

So I know that I'm I don't have any issue with it, but tabularizing it seems like a lot of work.

So if you want to do that, we'll we'll find a way to make it it's just it is I did not know that this had been done.

So thank you for doing that five years ago.

Um, but maybe you know, summarizing and tabulate tab, whatever the word for putting in the table is, and then I think working on what relates to the workload we're seeing in in town and may see.

So thank you.

I agree.

Yes, I think that's a good idea.

You're waiting a long time.

That's all right.

So one question is are we limited to the lines in this table?

That's what's uh seems currently in the UDC.

But I'm not sure what the bounds are at this point and what types of things we would propose.

Yes.

The UDC sets forth your roles and responsibilities.

Anything beyond that would require a code change.

I understand.

And that's what I'm asking.

Is that within the realm of possibility or not for this discussion?

This so this discussion is what more can we do?

Right.

Right.

And if there are items that we identify it as, hey, this is a major time savings for for you all, or something that is um neglected, missing, deficient, or hey, we just think it's a really good idea to do this, we can make that ask.

This is the time now.

Again, we have a council that is amenable.

Um, it does not have to be in this list.

Okay.

But if there are items that are pertaining to this list, that is also a uh a bona fide ask as well.

Yeah, because I I do agree with what Commissioner Zetz was saying as far as using this uh as a way of doing things.

I was wondering if it may be overly limiting, and I don't have anything in the top of my head saying, oh, well, we should do this.

But I don't want us to constrain our thoughts if we don't have to.

If we do have to, then we should.

Yeah, and and in regards to that, uh the one thing that I uh we have the uh water allocations that just went into effect, right?

We're we're not gonna we haven't been, and we're not going to see the development applications like we have in 2020, 2021, 2022, like it just isn't going to happen.

All the land, you know, the massive ones have already moved through, and now they're larger um preliminary plats that are moving through instead of like Erie Highlands had what 18, I think, or something like that, like individual areas that they did at a time.

So it wasn't like one major one like we saw recently with Spring Hill, for instance, it was smaller in terms of how they're moving around.

So we're just we're not gonna see the application.

So how else can we be efficient and benefit the town?

Okay.

Um let me come back to you, Commissioner Leaf.

Yeah, I was gonna just uh I support everything that's been said so far.

I think the idea of benchmarking is a great place to start.

Um I don't believe in reinventing the wheel.

Um so I think that's a great baseline.

But I also think it's um good to kind of think about outside the box.

Um, how can we be more effective as a planning commission?

Um there are some really important um issues facing our town, and I think as systems thinkers, we should be connecting the dots, and whether that's just an educational process um or it's something that's more um uh legal, I I think is something that we can we can tackle.

But I think approaching it in that way is uh productive for this commission.

I had one Commissioner Schatz.

Yeah, I just want to thank the commissioner for the question.

It's a good question in the interest of no surprises.

I think if if we're totally confined to the UDC, it's not even a discussion.

Uh unfortunately or fortunately, you know, that's the nature of what we're talking about.

Is you know, right now initial zonings go to the town board, so that's the UDC.

Uh to have the conversation though, doesn't require us to change the UDC.

It's it's a conversation.

So I hope that comports with the staff's understanding of what we're trying to do.

Yeah.

So okay.

Good question.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Commissioner Hampa.

Um I when I'm looking at this and I'm just focusing on this table.

I think there's two schools of thought.

Um of them is if we take the workload off of the council and recommend that we take decision authority for more items.

Um that takes workload off the council, but it also gives the public less opportunity to provide input.

Um it also is a benefit to whichever developers working that land.

So there's that balance is if there's one viewer hearing, um, it does help.

Uh and if correct me if I'm wrong, the town council hearings are pretty much exactly the same as the pointing commission hearing.

It's like there's no real efficiency between the two.

Or like they take a so we have a hearing that takes an hour and a half.

Town council's hearing will probably also take about an hour and a half, or they yeah, there's probably a correlation.

Yeah, so it's just so there's that inefficiency effectively for the developer the way we have it now, where planning commission reviews council is decision.

And if we recommend that we take that decision away from council and put it on planning commission, it's just it doesn't provide that opportunity to the public, which I know is it's how a lot of things get caught.

I mean we we have no one here.

We rarely have public coming to a planning commission.

So if it seems, and this would be a decision for the council to decide, um, that if they give the planning commission a lot of power with decision authority, it may seem like things are getting just pushed through without the public input.

So I think we need to balance that um desire because we're not elected.

We don't we aren't really responsible to the electorate because the electorate can't remove us, so in the town council can remove us.

So I think as we recommend going decision authority, and I think there are some value in some of these items just being pointing commission decision that we balance that need from the public to give more comment and have that opportunity.

Umfield does their process?

No.

They start out with a period of time that is a public input period.

And it is meant for having all this, all these comments and discussions about these things up front.

So an application comes in, they basically have this period where then they receive all these comments on it and they you know publicize it, so they get it known so that individuals in in the community can state their you know, opposition, proponent four.

Um what you're saying um is hey, I understand that yes, it might do that, but how do we still get the comments because people will come out to ours or might not come out to ours and then they come out to the council one?

You know, so I I do think that is extremely valid because obviously the public comment process and hearing from the community is amazingly important in in any of these.

So if we did go that route, now we're talking about how do we change the process because we have to have you know the community's input.

What can we do differently?

And I mean, there could be situations where it does make sense to do something like that, but now we're talking about a completely different process that is going to be staff having to deal with that.

So I'm not saying I'm an I'm against it by any means.

Um it's just a different process than what we currently have.

Yeah.

I just want to make sure that we're balancing the the need of the public with um taking workload off the council.

Agreed.

Yeah, I don't know that that's the dichotomy here.

Uh and you you just had the on the one hand, and I didn't hear what the other hand was, but um I I just want to say I view it as a much broader uh set of things that we're talking about.

Um so I I wouldn't concur that that was the impression I had of the conversation to take decision-making authority back.

Um I think we're talking about you know, sketch plan um goes only to council.

Um and just let's let's compare.

Let's see what the data is on on what our other jurisdictions have done and and what we can do.

And I think you'll find there's a lot broader uh set of choices.

Um thank you.

Uh to go on to what Commissioner Humphell was saying, what um we've had applications that have come before planning commission and council where it was in addition of five acres to the property by code.

Any change to the boundaries of that property for PD, etc.

requires an application that is heard by the planning commission by the council.

So there are actually applications that have been seen where you know when I was on council, we were going, why are we seeing this?

Well, because they're adding five five acres.

Basically, it was you know, a was a cutout, and then they just added it in.

That now triggers the full application process.

So I will say there are specific specific applications that have been seen that we should probably take into account and saying, how do we improve this process where council doesn't have to see this because honestly, we looked at it like this is easy approve, you know?

So if I may.

Please.

I mean, yeah, the standard zoning enabling act is special uses are approved by the planning commission, but that that is evolved in so many different directions that again I may say the same thing you're saying, which is yeah, some of this stuff probably final decision at the planning commission makes more sense, but I just think it's it's broader than that.

That we're we're looking at a lot more dimensions to the planning process than just who has authority.

Yep.

And and first off, for for everybody, this is probably the most pinpointed we've been to date on some of these aspects of what roles and responsibilities.

So this is very good to hear.

Um obviously this is gonna take a while for us to come up with all these, but um, you know, I I I like the conversation that we're having so far.

Um, but to your point, are there items that um may not be within this grid here that we're seeing as would be beneficial for the planning commission to either get involved with or to assist on?

Say, for instance, we said, hey, um, joint study sessions with the other boards and commissions because there's a lot of crossover.

Um, you know, we we all said that is a a good idea.

Let's see what we can come up with.

Obviously, topics and purpose for those we will come up with as time goes on.

Um are there any other things that we've either discussed or anybody has had as an idea of I've thought of this, and I think that we may benefit the community if we did this or if we were to help push something along.

Please.

Yeah, I think it came up early on uh that the comp plan process has all these functional plans on particularly like adequacy of public facilities has been a question I know and in some of the scant stuff I'm aware of uh that's come through planning commission and council and functional plans can help make that more robust.

Um looking at some of those really specific parts of the comp plan may be worth discussing uh again from the sense that that could be initiated by the planning commission where it has not and traditionally isn't, but that is a good conversation point, I think.

Okay, so um if I understand this correctly, uh adequacy adequacy of uh public facilities.

So are you referring to like the infrastructure?

I think there's like a capital facilities plan at as a component of the comp plan in Erie.

I the the capital improvement plan um yeah, and the capital improvement fund, which we had uh gone over last time.

Um yes, there are those, and those are based on immediate needs or long-term needs.

Um so that was uh wrapped.

Oh and hard 11th, that was the the reason for the denial because during the process we found out there weren't adequate facilities for storm drainage water sewer, you know, uh transportation, you know, like we we saw that as the issue, and that's why it ended up you know being denied.

So um it is something that you're right, it is in the comprehensive plan.

So um I want to on that note, I want to go to this item here and just ask staff.

Um growth management planning.

Um what I know that this is very broad, but what exactly is the growth management planning?

Because it looks like it was 2026 for Q1 through three, and now we're finally in Q3.

So what what exactly is the growth management planning?

Yeah, that was a a joint effort um across basically all departments um to deal with the the water allocation situation.

Okay.

Has that also been adapted to the other enterprises, uh storm drainage, um, uh storm drainage, um, wastewater um or any of the transportation side.

Um, I know I've I've advocated saying, hey, we should literally have projections out there based on these times we anticipate forecasts this population.

Okay.

Now let's track that against the you know capacity of our of our water treatment facility, our wastewater facility, you know, etc.

Um, has that encompassed part of that?

Uh not that specific item.

There are those functional strategic plans that that do that level of um and the uh water master plan is um starting soon or already has.

I can't remember.

I believe it's underway.

Okay, thank you.

Yeah.

Let me come back to you.

Are you finished that discussion?

Uh yeah, yeah.

I'd be curious from staff if you can think of any areas where our involvement that you think would be a help rather than a hindrance.

I mean, speed things up rather than slow things down.

And you'll have to answer off the top of your head, but it's something to think about.

Sorry to bring us back to that last conversation, but similar question to uh where we talk about the UDC, which is is there a sense amongst this commission that at least for the purposes of the joint session, we should ask the town council and certainly ask staff the same question you're asking, which is can we help?

Yeah, uh, I don't I don't have any particular impression other than seems like some criteria to say like adequate public facilities is a true factual inquiry and is related to say urban drainage now mile high flood district planning and implementation of plan of specific plans that had specific CFS that weren't being implemented in the case we just talked about.

I mean, something that can guide that process in a way that has not occurred before, and maybe it is too much of a hindrance or too much work or something that the council has in priority, but I think if the sense of this commission is we should at least ask, yeah, I'm happy to do that.

Yeah, because we were talking about taking workload off council.

Is there potential areas we could take workload off staff?

And I'm not saying there is.

I I'm saying I don't know.

Or how can we be a sounding board more for some of the initiatives?

Um, because obviously, you know, there's very bright individuals up here that are in you know a range of different industries backgrounds that have always provided you know this this good insights.

Is there anything that we can do to assist you in some of the initiatives that you have have currently moving through or plan to move through?

Yeah, I mean, I think you know, we've talked about all of those things that are that are kind coming before you, the the UDC update, um, the old town planning, um, the comp plan amendments.

Um you you all will weigh heavily in all of those.

So I mean when I when I look, you know, look at looking what happened with the water allocation policy.

I know that there was um it was done through an emergency ordinance, it was necessary um or emergency resolution was necessary to do this as soon as possible, so it went to effect the next day, but that had never come up before us.

We were on we would have been unaware unless one of us had watched what had occurred.

So that is something that personally I can't speak for the rest of the body, um, was a was very much a surprise, has major implications to so many initiatives, economic development, residential development, just basic growth for the town, and it causes a ripple effect through so many different departments now where we have been reliant on development activity.

Um I think it was uh 10 to 15 percent of our total budget is development activity uh from development activity uh funds, and now we're severely limiting those.

Granted, the market has also been you know uh curtailing what we've seen in the past, but that alone and for the next five to seven years is going to be extremely impactful because we only have so much water, right?

So um, you know, how can we how can we be informed about these things before they reach that point?

Because again, this is you know, this is comp plan related, adequate facilities, uh water management plan, et cetera, that goes into this as elements.

That goes into this as elements.

Um how can we stay informed of these better?

That also be something that we you know we could potentially ask of staff, I would I would assume so the water allocation policy, as you said, was um highly sensitive.

Highly um and there's a reason it stayed at the level it did and went through the emergency ordinance level, so we didn't have a run on the bank, so to say, of what we do have left.

Um, and you know, council is the policymakers and it was a policy decision, so that's why it stayed at that level.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um questions, comments, anything?

Okay, so personally when I hear that, I I you know my my question is how do we get to that point where we had to get to the emergency emergency resolution and ordinance that basically identified, hey, we only have so much per year.

Um, how do we get to that point?

I don't I know it wasn't somebody dropping the ball.

I know in this situation it was uh the uh chimney hollow um specifically, and then what has been going on with NISP?

Correct.

But um, you know that isn't planning and development specific.

Obviously, that's the other department.

So uh question would be how can we get some other departments involved in this so we can stay informed of what's going on because um as we ask questions, we get better insight, and as we ask questions and get better insight, there's questions asked that staff may not have asked or you know, addressed.

Um I know that there's always the time when I see staff writing something like that's a good one, you know.

So um how can we also get the other departments um utilities, public works, um, our transportation division, because they're no longer in planning development, how can we get them involved or finance to talk about the capital improvement plan, you know, those kinds of things for our educational purposes?

Is that possible?

Uh I would have to talk with town administration.

Haven't we kind of discussed that too, though, in the past, like the sub plans coming before us for review?

The web plans?

The sub plans coming before us for presentation.

Haven't we kind of discussed that in past meetings?

Because I think that would be how we would become aware of those issues, would right?

I mean, I I just think we've discussed that, so I think that would probably be the best way to about that.

One of the things we do those type for example is we had uh water department come and give presentations to us saying this was probably five years ago when everything was rosy and it looked like we were great, but it was trying to do the things you're talking about, is down the road, where are we getting our water from?

And it what is just one example.

Yep.

And I think we could ask for presentations from other departments.

So okay.

Okay, so anything else that is top of mind, um, because what I'm gonna ask the follow-up discussion is we have an ask.

Um, say if you are uh uh a nonprofit and you have an event, you always ask for something.

And it's always, you know, in their case, you know, a donation to you know supplement their funding.

We're gonna want to have an ask of council so that we can say, hey, these are things that we feel we can do.

Um I I know that we're not at the point of us knowing what that is.

I think we're we're close though.

Um so I'd prefer if we could have one or two next time that we say, hey, we're gonna ask council of this because these we really feel we can do.

Um and I will say we also have the you know the uh joint sessions with the other boards and commissions, that's one that we're doing.

Um I don't know if we do or don't need council approval to do that.

Uh but um, you know, that's that's one we said we want to do.

So if you come back and say, hey, yeah, that has to be added in, please let us know.

Okay.

Um but um if we could the next I I know we've had a lot of discussion on discussions on this, but um 11th hour, we're almost there.

So if we can come to some uh finality or semi-finality for next next time we meet, and um I think I have 15 minutes on there for that, so we can you know um stretch it out a little, but we have two QJMs next time.

So we actually only have one.

One QJ.

So we can stretch it out a little.

So let's um brainstorm um if you want to work on you know that um more than more than happy and willing to.

Um but let's let's try to have one or two asked saying, hey, we really feel through the conversations we've had, through what we've discussed, this is where we do feel we can serve the community and council best.

Any objections to that?

No.

Okay.

Any last questions, comments, feedback, anything?

Question about the joint sessions with other boards and commissions.

You had mentioned questioning whether we need council permission to meet with another board.

Why would we need council permission to meet with the other board?

Well, because it's not in our duties.

Um the duties of the planning commission are are around Title 10.

Is there anything in Title 10 that says we should be meeting with the boards and commissions?

But there's nothing that says we can't.

I I understand.

Um totally understand.

I get it.

100%.

Um, but I'm gonna turn to our uh town attorney's office to let us know whether or not they deem it is or isn't um uh uh I know we've uh discussed um you know there is some privileged communications in there related to the question of uh possibility of us having a resolution.

Um is that something you know, resolution for the RO process.

Um is are you able to explain a little bit uh what you had told me about whether our body is or isn't able to provide a recommendation for RO?

Yeah, I I think um as been said here before, I think the rules or the duties and responsibilities of the planning commission starts with the charter and then uh refers to uh chapter three and then the UDC.

That's the the crux of what the duties are.

Um primarily uh recommendation body for various land use applications.

Um if the planning commission and what's been discussed here, if the planning commission wants to expand the authority to have additional ability to um act on applications, provide additional guidance or assistance uh to town council, uh I I think it is best to have an ordinance to amend either even either the duties in Title III where the planning commission um responsibilities are set forth, or in the UDC.

Um so there is clear guidance from town council on what the duties and responsibilities and expectations of the planning commission are.

So I brought up the example of R.O.

because the question is do we even have any authority?

Say we meet with OSTAB and say that's great, can we have a resolution?

Do we even have any authority to do that?

Technically, we may not because the charter provides that to OSTAP.

So that's where it's we are provided only what is within the UDC, and generally this is it.

So if we want to expand it out, yeah, there may be some smaller things we can put into the bylaw since council does have to approve that, but if there's certain things that we identify saying, hey, this is where we see a fit and we want to do more in, even if it's a broad topic and we're not saying you know, this specific aspect, if we want to be a little broader and um you know expand out our mission, probably would uh be a code change that would be required to do so so that there is explicit permission to do so.

Because again, right now we don't have explicit permission to say, hey, we want to meet with you know Ostab, tree board, sustainability, like does it fall into anything within the UDC?

No, then technically we may not be able to at the moment.

I mean, to that point, did the sustainability board break the law by meeting with the tree board and putting on uh a leaf collection event?

No, no, but that wasn't laid out in the code.

But so that's I I get it.

I think consulting the town attorney is not a bad idea though.

Like I don't think I don't see any negative in that.

Okay.

It's this whole job.

Yeah, and I think I mean we when you look at the other boards uh in title three, chapter two, there's uh you know, specific duties on where they advise, where they recommend and certain actions they can take.

Um so I think the the authority for those boards is vested in the enabling ordinance.

The planning commission, the the enabling authority is limited to what's set forth in Title 10.

So to meet with Ostab or other boards, it should be tied somehow to the roles and responsibilities of the planning commission.

So if you want to expand and provide additional advice or guidance recommendations to town council, I I think it would be you ask town council for those additional responsibilities, and that will be implemented through an ordinance change to specify those additional responsibilities, either in uh Title II or Chapter 2 of Title III or in the UDC.

Yeah, because one of the issues with talking to OSTAP is you could run into some quasi-judicial issues.

So I'd be very careful about that.

Yeah, certainly.

Because I know we've had from what I was on stab, we had hearings and things.

Or well reviewed development applications.

Yeah.

And I think any time that a potential application could come through and and not even um quasi judicial, because that's kicks in when an application is filed.

Um but there's just a potential appearance of bias or improprip, not in propriety, but impartiality.

Yeah.

Um, if you're meeting and providing recommendations on potential rezoning and taking a position on a rezoning before an application is filed, so this may be a stupid question, but um when you look at the UDC, which we're um given authority to to weigh in on in the general provisions, it says that the UDC is to ensure the service demands of new development will not exceed the capabilities of existing streets, utilities, or other public facilities and services.

So by extension, since we're responsible for making sure that the UDC does this, should we not be talking about these things?

And which section are you looking at?

It's in the general provisions, uh, chapter uh 10 1-3 subsection B 18.

So the comprehensive plan, you know, right, right.

Um and those are generally incorporated in the criteria that you all look at at the various land use applications.

I know approval can approval conditions, you know, for for most of them, you know, adequate facilities, right?

That is one of them that um what is adequate facilities mean?

Do you know is it per development by development, or is it us looking at comprehensively?

Because um, you know, the Arapaho 111th uh situation, it was not only specific to that property, it was the entire area around there that was inadequate.

And that was you know one of the issues, right?

So please I I just want to say, I mean, when you develop uh decision or quasi-digit case, it has to be on the record.

So uh, you know, going outside of uh this process for information that we're gonna use in decision making is problematic.

Uh I'm just trying to get you back to your normal seat uh by saying that I think we have general consensus uh that the next thing we're gonna do is talk to the town council.

And certainly we are well advised uh by our town attorney uh before we proceed with such a thing.

Yes.

So that's one of the reasons uh let's try to come up with one or two asks so that we can run it through staff as well as the town attorney's office so that they can deem whether that is something that we could potentially do, whether there would be a code uh amendment, um, and then staff capacity, because obviously if we say, hey, we want to do this, we know we're volunteers.

It is going to rely on staff time and they have a number of priorities.

Maybe it's something that we could tack on to their you know future work plan, um, but we can't ask them for their time if they don't have it.

So yes, I thank you for allowing me to get back to my seat.

Any last questions?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thanks to you.

Thank you all.

Okay, that was the last general business item.

So now uh comes down to staff reports, and we are right on time somehow.

Yeah.

Uh are there any uh uh items to know from staff?

Uh just a couple things.

Just want to thank Josh Campbell for not only being here tonight and answering some of those technical questions, but um, as I'm sure you all are aware, MJ Adams retired, Eric Leverage left, and Josh has graciously folded in those remaining affordable housing um functions into his job.

So thank you, Josh.

Um and you may notice a new face around the diocese.

This is Daryl Walnick, he's our new planning manager.

Um the planning manager does serve as staff liaison.

So we're you know transitioning that.

I'll be here for a while as Derek.

Daryl gets used to uh eerie particulars, but um Daryl's got many years of experience.

Comes to us most recently from the consulting world, but has also worked um in municipality as well.

Um welcome.

Yeah.

We're very happy to have more staff to help.

Um we are transitioning to a new agenda management software.

Um so the i legislate app will go away.

There will be a new one.

It is a lot more intuitive.

Um that won't happen until August for planning commission.

We're gonna test it out on council first.

So we're not volunteering for that.

Yeah, we our next meeting is the 15th.

Um we do have only one public hearing.

There was um an issue with the uh neighborhood meeting notice for one of them.

So they're gonna redo that.

And we don't have a date for that yet.

Um so we have that one public hearing and then the further discussion on joint study session.

So that's it.

Okay.

Um let's start with Commissioner Leaf.

Uh, do you have any commissioner reports?

No, uh other than to say I just enjoyed this evening's conversation, and I look forward to continuing.

Thank you.

Uh Commissioner Brodus.

Yeah, I just wanted to thank staff for getting back to all the people emailing us about the golf course.

Sure.

And I hope everyone has a wonderful independence day.

Yes.

I love your nails.

Thank you.

Um and uh Commissioner Schatz.

Uh just a reminder that on uh the second July meeting, so July 15th, I am going to be out of town.

I can join uh remotely.

I will have that ability if that's desirable.

I certainly will deliver something for everyone's consideration, hopefully in the next week uh to assist the conversation we just had.

All right.

Thank you.

Nothing.

And I don't have anything.

Um I just want to also reiterate.

Uh thank you, Josh, for joining us.

Um, I feel like we anytime we have one of these conversations, you just have a plethora of information.

So please feel free to join us more, you know.

Um, but uh really I I do want to also um re reiterate what was just said.

Thank you all for the conversation we just had.

I've been through a dozen of these.

One of these links you saw it was a continuation of a continuation of a continuation of like six meetings back to back where we talked about that, and we didn't get into a place where we said, I feel we can do this, and this is something specific.

So I'm hoping, hoping one or two um next meeting we can we can get to.

But um wanted to thank you all.

So um, with tradition, I am going to ask for a motion.

Motion to a second.

Time is 8.06, and we are adjourned.