And I will ask Mayor Pro Tem Bell to um lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Underground individual liberties.

All right, well, the town clerk, please take roll.

Mayor Moore.

Here.

Uh Councilmember Hoback.

Here.

Uh Mayor Pro Tem Bell.

Here.

Council Member Mortalero.

Here.

Council Member Pessimarelli.

Present.

Councilmember Bear.

Present.

And Councilmember O'Connor.

Present.

Mayor, you have a quorum.

All right.

Great.

Uh do we have a motion to approve the agenda tonight?

So I could.

All right.

We have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

All right.

Motion carries.

We have an agenda tonight, and we'll move right on to public comment.

So I'll turn it over to our town clerk to lead us through that.

So, Mayor, before we begin public comment, I just wanted to let you know that we have approximately seven people signed up to speak on the Erie Highlands Metro District appointment.

It's not a public hearing.

We don't usually take comment on things that aren't public hearing, but it's totally up to council whether you want to allow those individuals to speak.

Yeah, I think we should allow um the seven individuals to address us on that topic tonight.

Okay, I will get started.

So the first person is Megan Hughes.

And I'm here because I want to express my support of the affordable housing um villages at Cole Creek development.

Um the reasons I support this is I believe in mixed use housing.

As all of you know, the cost of housing is insane.

Um, especially in Erie, I think I read an article not that long ago that noted that Erie was one of the most affluent um areas in Colorado.

I don't think that's something we should be celebrating.

I think we need to have more diverse housing options for for residents of all types.

Um I can tell you in the three years that I have lived in Northridge, I have personally had neighbors that have had to leave the neighborhood because their financial situations have changed, and they couldn't find anywhere else in Erie that they could relate relocate to and um continue to live.

Also, as all of you know, in uh I think it was 2021, the uh Erie Board of Trustees had adopted a I believe it's a 12% guide to try and achieve 12% of the housing stock would be affordable housing by 2035.

Um last I checked on your website, you're at less than one percent.

Um I don't think that's a lot of progress.

So I strongly support having the affordable housing um happen on that lot.

What I'd like to see ideally is having a mix of affordable housing and open space.

Um ideally it would be the affordable housing in the lower part of the lot, which I believe is what was originally intended to be closer to the town and just support economic development, and then up towards the top part of the lot, which my understanding is um is not quite as easy to develop and also has a lot of great natural areas, such as old growth trees that are home to a lot of wildlife, um, a couple of owls that we hear every morning.

So I think it's important to preserve that part and connect that to the trail that um that goes along the uh um the walking path, but then have affordable housing um down there close to the town.

So what I definitely don't want to see is I don't want a church, um, and I don't want any more McMansions.

So thank you for your time.

Next is Bill Hughes.

No.

Okay.

Huh?

Bill, it was Bill Hughes.

Bill Hughes.

I'm Bill Hugh, and I live in uh Erie Commons.

And we moved here last year, so we're fairly new.

But I've spent uh I'm retired, but uh my daughter, you just heard she lives up here too.

So we're up here because of our grandkids.

But I've spent I had 30 years experience working in different cities.

I was planning director in in Lakewood.

I was uh Columbine uh director in Columbine Valley.

I worked 15 years for the city of Kansas City, Missouri in housing and various other things.

And I'm I'm new here, so I don't have a huge background with Erie, but it would seem like how most every place I worked had some sort of a housing commission.

A group of people that were interested in housing, subsidized housing, other just a variety of things.

And I think that that would be a good group to have to report to you guys in the City Planning Commission on the needs, because there is a need.

Everybody we meet here in in Erie is here for one thing.

Their grandkids are here.

There's a lot of older people moving in here.

Now you younger people may not realize that, but it's there's a huge amount of elderly people.

And there's all kinds of programs that would fit other people, tool two housing.

We built two or three of those and we didn't do it, but developers did.

We worked with them.

And Erie has so much vacant land.

You got so much to offer.

If politically you had decided to provide some middle income housing or something, but you need some sort of a housing commission to do the the background work and have you know presentations.

That was basically it.

But we like living here.

We like it.

It's it's a neat town.

And there's a big variety of incomes and stuff here right now.

I think you know that.

So all right.

Thank you.

Next is Barry Luganville.

So good evening, Mayor and trustees.

Appreciate you guys for allowing us to speak on this tonight.

My name is Barry Luganville and I live in Erie Highlands.

Um and I'm here tonight because our neighborhood metro district is facing some serious governance problems.

Um we currently have a vacant spot on our board.

And the board president has refused to follow proper procedure to fill that vacancy.

As a result, the district is unable to function responsibly, and residents no longer have trust and leadership to act in the community's best interest.

This is why we've asked the town to step in and make an appointment.

One of the applicants to this open seat is a gentleman by the name of Tony.

And I want to emphasize that my comment here tonight are not personal by any means.

Tony is the spouse of a sitting board member who is currently subject of a recall election due to concerns about transparency and mismanagement.

Allowing the spouse of a recall or potentially recalled board member to fill a vacancy creates an immediate and obvious conflict of interest.

And it would further erode public confidence at a time when trust is already at an all-time low.

In addition, Tony has made repeated posts on our neighborhood page that have been divisive and inflammatory.

These public actions demonstrate a lack of commitment and unity.

On the other hand, we have an applicant who has already demonstrated integrity, transparency, and commitment to the community.

That's Josh Malm.

Josh has previously served on our Metro District Board.

During that time, he consistently advocated for all residents, communicated openly, explained board decisions clearly, and carried himself with professionalism and respect.

He has worked tirelessly to bring clarity to the neighborhood concerns and has earned the trust of a large portion of our community.

Right now, our neighborhood needs stability, experience, and someone who can help help restore trust.

And Josh is the only applicant that brings that to the table right now.

I urge the town council to appoint Josh Malm.

Not only is he the most qualified candidate, but appointing him would send an important message that the town supports transparency, fairness, and responsible governors, especially when special when a special district is unable or unwilling to uphold those values on its own.

Thank you for your time and stepping in during this moment when our neighborhood truly needs leadership.

Thank you.

Next we have Christy Bowers.

Oh, sorry, Primes with Flowers.

Oh.

That's in the kindergarten.

Sorry about that.

Hi there, I'm Christy Cowers, a resident of Erie Highlands Metro District One.

I am here to request that town council appoint Josh Malm to the vacant seat on Erie Highlands Metropolitan District One board.

Josh has been a study leader for the neighborhood for more than seven years, collaborating to steer the neighborhood through the messy separation with Oakwood.

He has deep understanding of the complexities of metro districts and unique expertise in the specifics to Erie Highlands.

Josh does his homework and carefully considers both legal and relational implications of his actions.

Under most circumstances, I would end my public comment there.

Unfortunately, our Metro District is in extraordinarily unusual circumstances, with a board paralyzed by dysfunction caused by immense distrust in some of its current leaders.

One of the other people that has self-nominated to be appointed by you tonight, Tony Phileas, plays a central role in that dysfunction.

At present, his wife Christine Phileas is a seated member of the Metro District 1 board.

That alone should disqualify Tony for appointment.

As a single household holding two-fifths of a board's votes, hardly represents fair and democratic representation for the rest of the neighborhood.

The board fell apart in May 2025 after three of the MD1 board members conversed with Tony in the neighborhood clubhouse.

During that conversation, Tony declared that they needed to find a mole to undermine the two board members not present.

This is recorded, and Tony admitted to making the comment.

Although Chris's camera is never on during public meetings, you can hear Tony coaching her throughout meetings.

The lack of trust in her has deteriorated to the point that she will be recalled through a special election set for January 23rd, 2026.

During a hearing with the election judge about his wife's position, Tony had the last word stating that we'll be moving forward.

He meddles where he has no authority, and he contributes to the dysfunction and lack of trust in his wife.

More than 320 neighbors signed the recall petition for Christine Phileas.

We neither need nor want another filius to perpetuate the dysfunction.

Josh Malm holds the trust of the neighborhood.

I respectfully ask that you appoint him to the vacant seat.

Thank you for your time.

Next, we have Tanya Bacca.

Sorry, reading glasses.

Good evening.

My name is Tanya Baca.

Some may know me as Tony Baca.

I'm currently a resident in here in Erie Highlands Metro District One.

And I also serve on the board.

This evening I'm here to represent as a resident.

I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight.

The Metro District Board number one has been experiencing significant challenges.

Sorry if I could wash off.

We ask for your assistance to help stabilize and move forward projectivity.

This is not about personalities.

It's about ensuring that the board can operate effectively and earn the trust of our residents.

We need someone who can represent the community without conflict of interest or divided loyalties.

We need someone with experience who will work hand in hand with other members of the board as well as our residents.

I respectfully urge the town to consider a candidate who can bring collaboration, stability, experience, and commitment to serve the community as a whole.

This is what will allow our board to function effectively and to rebuild the trust and the confidence of our residents that we have lost.

And on a personal note that I don't have this down, um I've I've served on the board and I've been a member of this community since we built our home in 2016.

Prior to Josh Mom leaving the board, we functioned properly, effectively.

And we didn't have issues like we're having right now.

If you've ever, if any of you have looked at the videos and watched the meetings, they get very frustrating.

Um I get very emotional about it because I raise my family here.

And I want a board that I can be proud of, and I want the community to trust us.

I want them to know that we have their best interest at heart.

And right now that is not the case.

So thank you very much for your time.

I know that this is not anything that was on your docket or your um plate to handle, but obviously we need your help, and thank you for taking this matter seriously and assisting us moving forward.

Next, we have Joshua Maum.

Uh good evening, Mayor and members of the town council.

Uh for the record, my name is Josh Mall.

I live at 140 Pebble Brook Court in Erie Highlands.

Um just wanted to pause and uh thanks everyone for the uh comments they've provided so far.

It's uh truly humbling.

Um I wanted to thank the town council for taking on this issue of the vacancy in Erie Highlands Metropolitan District number one.

Uh I know this is not something that town typically gets involved in, uh, and that has taken truly unusual and difficult circumstances for you to take this step.

Many of us are grateful that you are willing to do that and help restore stability and trust.

By acting tonight, you're also helping the district fulfill its statutory responsibilities to adopt a 2026 budget prior to the December 15th statutory deadline, a process that has been delayed by division on the board.

I also wanted to thank you for a transparent way that you have overseen this process, providing public notice, inviting applications, mailings, and discussing the appointments here in an open meeting.

Your decision to lead an open public process has gone a long way towards reassuring residents that the decision will be fair.

As you know, I am one of three residents who submitted an application to fill the vacancy, and I appreciate being considered alongside Ms.

Johnson and Mr.

Phileas.

I have previously served as a director and president of the district, and I'm willing to serve again if you believe I can be helpful.

But regardless of whom you appoint tonight, I want to end where I started by thanking you for stepping in under difficult circumstances to help Erie Highlands return to a functioning, respectful board for the benefit of its residents.

Thank you for your time and for your service to our community.

Next is um Ash Sheikh.

And I mean, so many people have spoken so eloquently already.

So I just wanted to say thank you for considering this and moving so quickly in this matter of such importance to our neighborhood.

Um, and I wanted to state my own support for Josh Malm in for this board board seat.

Thank you very much.

Next is Mitchell Gonzalez.

Good evening, Mayor Moore and Erie Town Council.

I'm Mitchell Gonzalez.

I'm a resident of Erie Highlands.

Thank you for taking the steps to help fill the Erie Highlands Metro District 1 vacancy.

I've seen firsthand the dysfunction of Erie Highlands Metro District One over the last few months, with certain board members making poor financial decisions, breaking quorum in meetings by abruptly, signing off the Zoom at the very beginning of the meeting to break quorum and ending the meeting prematurely without any logical reason why.

Um tying important votes to impede progress and delaying things like budget approval without any feedback on why.

This is our first year where our boards are controlled by residents instead of Oakwood, and it's been painful to see certain board members seemingly go out of their way to impede progress and cost the community a ton of money while doing so.

This is why I respectfully ask the town to fill the vacancy immediately and cannot think of a better candidate than Josh Mom.

He is honestly overqualified uh for the position with seven years of experience on the board and helped help facilitate the settlement agreement with Oakwood, which is helping us gain our independence and get the community back in financial order.

He has an incredible understanding of how our Metro District works and a great relationship with many of the residents, as you can see tonight, and the Metro District 2 board as well, which is important since we are functioning jointly.

He would be an amazing asset as we continue to establish ourselves as an independent community.

And I honestly feel like appointing him would be an extremely quick and seamless process because of his past experience, which is exactly what our community needs right now.

I am also aware that Mr.

Tony Phileas has nominated himself for the position.

I would ask that he not be considered for a number of reasons.

One, his wife currently sits on the board, and for a metro district that consists of roughly 320 homes, it does not seem equitable to have one household holding two of the five board member seats and effectively controlling 40% of the vote.

Two, his wife is actively being recalled for a number of reasons.

One of which she was caught with two other board members breaking open meeting laws.

During this conversation, there was an individual that recommended creating a mole and um openly making false accusations and slandering a D1 board member on Facebook.

During public comment of one of our board meetings, um Tony Phileas admitted to being the individual creating the plan and making the comment about creating the mole.

This is not the type of person I want representing my community.

This is why I respectfully ask town council to appoint Josh Malm to the vacant spot as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Uh Jason Manley is next.

Good evening, town council.

My name's Jason Manley.

I'm also part of Erie Howling District One as a board member.

But here's the question.

Hey, Jason, can you get the microphone closer?

Yeah, much better.

Thank you.

So I had a whole little speech planned out.

I don't think it's needed.

The community has clearly made his voice heard.

This is something that the D1 board has been hearing for months and has chosen not to take action on.

So I am deeply, deeply appreciative that the town council is listening, hearing the voices of the community, and I hope acts on the voices of the community.

This is only a small subsection of people that have spoken up and boy and uh support of Josh Mall.

Erie Highlands needs the town's support.

It needs to be able to get through these turbulent times.

It needs someone from experience.

And you've all heard multiple testimonies of why we need Josh appointment to the seat.

So all I can do is once again say thank you for assisting us to get through this time.

Thank you for helping us fill this fifth member so we're no longer stuck in a two-two deadline and just getting Erie Highlands through these rough, rough patches that we're in to finally start supporting our community again.

Thank you.

Okay, that's all that has signed up.

And I don't see anybody online with their hand raised.

So I think that is it.

All right.

And can you just double check if there's anybody else in the audience that would like to address this tonight?

I don't see any hands raised.

All right.

Sounds good.

Uh that will conclude the public comment and we'll move on to the first of three agenda items tonight.

The first is item 25635, a resolution of the town council, town of Erie appointing a member to the Erie Highlands Metropolitan District No.

Board of Directors.

Um I will just summarize the key points here.

Uh the Erie Highlands Metro District number one board of directors has been unable to fill a seat on their board in order to complete the regular um the regular business.

Um this is because there's four members on the board and it's been a two-two split in their efforts to try to fill that last seat.

Uh the town council is asked to appoint a member to the Metro District Board, which is in our purview to do.

And the town council opened an application process and receive three applicants.

Tony uh Phileas, um Cordyander Johnson, and Joshua Malm.

And so I'll bring it back to the um council to see if there's any input uh from any members.

Uh since I'm remote, I think what I'd like to do is just to start with council member uh Pesra Amelli, and then we'll work our way down.

Um part of being remote here.

So sorry, I I need to make a brief statement before we vote on this.

Yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um first I want to thank everybody that came out to speak tonight, but um want to address this.

Uh to provide clarity and transparency on the agenda item tonight to fill an appointment on the vacancy on the Erie Highlands Metro District One board.

I would like to make the following statement.

My wife and Teresa and I have been residents of the Erie Highland Metro District One since 2017.

While I have conferred with the town attorney that I have done nothing wrong and that the threshold of a council member to have a conflict of interest on an agenda item is the potential of personal financial gain, which I have none in this case.

However, I want to directly address the call from Director President Jim Davis to ask for my recusal in this matter matter.

Well, the vacancy first occurred.

Uh Josh Mom, one of the applicants had read at one of the special district meetings.

Uh rules in public comment um noting that an appointment for the approving body of the metro district could be made if the district board did not make an appointment within the 60 days of the vacancy.

The thought at the time was that the Weld County Commissioners could make an appointment.

Since Josh has previously served on the Metro District Board and knowing Josh personally and his qualifications, I told him I would be glad to email the county commissioners recommending the appointment.

I performed these actions as a resident using my personal email address, also confirming with the town attorney that my actions were not in any official capacity.

The commissioners contacted me and let me know that they were not the approval authority for the Metro District.

It could not make an appointment and that the town of Erie would need to.

When the town told the Metro District we would make a nomination, it was our honest hope that the district one board would make an appointment before this body provided action.

Because they had not made that appointment, and because I recommended Josh Malm to the Weld County Board of Commissioners and to protect the integrity of the vote and ensuring that the town council remains above reproach and to assure ensure the decision tonight cannot be challenged.

I am recusing myself from the selection tonight.

I have full confidence in my peers to make this decision on behalf of the residents of Erie Highlands.

I would also just like to note that there was a similar call for my colleague uh Commissioner Hoback to recuse himself.

Um to be clear, Commissioner Hoback has done nothing wrong, and I I see no reason that he should recuse himself.

So I'm doing this to protect uh the decision made here tonight.

So thank you and thank you for everyone speaking tonight.

So all right, thanks, Mayor Pro Tembell.

We will uh come and get you as soon as uh the vote is done on this particular topic.

Okay, what I was gonna say is because um it's probably hard to get my attention.

So please do what Mayor Pro Tem Bell did if you need to, just call my name.

But I'm thinking we just start with um Councilmember Peser Amelli, and we'll just work our way down.

If you don't have anything to say, just say pass and we'll go to the next member.

Um, and then we'll see if there's a motion for one of the three individuals.

Yeah, I will put Josh Mo.

All right.

Um I uh I agree with uh councilmember Pastor Melly.

Um I have concerns about Tony Phyllis and conflict of interest.

And Josh just seems to be the most qualified for the position and can jump right in and help the Metro District Board out and take the reins.

So that's my vote.

All right, thanks, Councilmember O'Connor.

Thank you.

Um I just want to thank the community for reaching out and um weighing in on this and help helping bring the the council up to speed on what's been happening.

And um, this has been a months long, really years long effort, um, if we're honest, um, about you know bringing this metro district into um solid leadership and representing the community.

And so it's so good to hear from the community.

I really appreciate all of the effort um and time that everyone has spent on it.

Um I also will be supporting uh Mr.

Mom because um the community has spoken and we have received dozens and dozens, if not hundreds of emails um and outreach supporting supporting him.

You should feel very supported in the community.

And also just the weight of that, maybe the expectations.

All right.

Thanks, Councilmember Bear.

Thanks everybody for coming out.

I really appreciate the comments and the contributions.

And so it it falls to us, and I'm glad we're in a position to where we're able to help solve this uh issue and and move forward.

When when I determine uh per the right person for a position, I look at experience and I look at fit.

Um there's one clear candidate who has the experience to get this uh board back on track um and to pull the community together.

Uh then I think about fit and overwhelmingly support for Josh uh from what we've heard tonight and from the many emails that we've gotten.

So the the residents have spoken, he is the right fit for the position.

So my vote is for is for Josh, and um I just look forward to uh the council and or the the board of Erie Highlands to start to pull the community together uh and and move forward, and I'm glad we're able to do this in times that you can handle your yeah, cover your fiscal responsibilities.

I know it's tight with uh December 15th, but um but I'm glad we're able to do it at least uh uh you know a week and a half uh prior to that date.

So uh that's my vote.

All right, thanks, Councilmember Morclero.

Um thank you, uh Mayor Pro Jim Bill for your uh your comments and I am in complete agreement.

Um and given that we've done done nothing wrong um and have no conflict of interest, I'm I'm going to choose differently to not recuse myself.

Um that's all I have to say.

Thank you.

All right.

Um I think I'm in the same place as the majority of council.

Um when we were asked to wait into this, uh it was something new for me, us getting involved in a metro district.

Uh, but it was clear as we learn more that the two two tie um and numerous attempts to appoint a fifth member um we're just gonna continue to fail.

So I'm glad there's a process.

We'd be in the process to rectify that.

Um I look at uh qualifications and without a doubt that Josh Malm um not only has the qualifications because of his professional background, but because he also has served for seven years and maybe equally important uh helped lead the community with the separation from the uh developer as well.

And so to get the ship uh writed and decision making capability um back in, I also support Joshua Malm as that individual.

So with that, I'll see if there's a motion to appoint uh Josh Malm as the Metro uh district um um metro district number one board uh of a director.

So move second.

All right, we have a motion and a second.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion carries, and I think uh we've got that one taken care of tonight.

Congratulate congratulations, Josh.

All right, let's move on to our next item uh tonight.

Hold on, I gotta get back to the agenda.

That's item 25624, the water-wise land escape draft ordinance discussion.

With that I will turn it over to Dylan King, our sustainability and water conservation specialist.

All righty.

We're good to go.

Can everybody see everything they need to see?

Cool.

All right, hey everyone.

Hey everyone, uh, my name's Dylan King, sustainability and water conservation specialist for the town of Erie.

Um excited to be here tonight to talk with you all about this waterwise landscaping draft ordinance that we've been working on, and just have a discussion.

Hey Dylan, can you make sure the microphone is in front of you?

I'd appreciate it.

Thanks.

You got it.

Yeah, so really quickly in agenda.

Um, what this update means for Erie, a little bit about how we got here, uh, why we're trying to do this now, um, a high level view of changes from existing code um in the in this new draft, um, how we're going to be aligning with state bill 24-005, um, and a brief overview of next steps.

So, what this vote or what this update means for Erie.

Um, this code will update chapter 10-6-4, landscape screening and fencing of Erie's Unified Development Code.

Um, this code will only apply to new development and large redevelopment projects.

Um, so it's not going to apply to any existing development unless those redevelopment triggers are reached.

Um the updated code will result in a multitude of different water benefits, including savings, efficiency gains, um, and just increased resiliency for the town.

So, a little bit about how we got here, it's been a process.

Um, the sustainability team applied for uh the WaterNow Alliance project accelerator in early 24.

Um, this program provides communities with 250 hours of pro bono support over about a year.

Um, and for those that included technical review of our codes, um review of neighboring municipal codes, best management practices, success metrics, savings estimates, and this draft of the new code that you've all seen.

Um then also internally we had extensive staff collaboration.

Um sitting behind us here.

Um, but that included sustainability, planning, parks, public works, um, beyond.

It was a really huge group effort.

Um and this collaboration just involved different draft iterations, extensive conversations, um, and really just trying to meet make a code that will meet Erie's needs.

So why now um Erie's landscape code needs to be updated to comply with state law SB24-005.

Um, and it supports our conservation efforts and goals.

Um we see persistent drought conditions and future growth necessitates forward-thinking land use and land and water use planning.

Um and then on top of that, recent community survey results called out water conservation as a top priority for many residents, so we want to do our due diligence there as well.

Okay, so this is only a couple of changes.

There's obviously numerous changes, but 30,000 foot view, um, changes from the existing code in this new draft.

We do restrict the use of cool season turf grass, except for in active recreation areas.

It reduces from 75 to 70 the living plant material coverage requirement for front yards for single family residential lots.

Uh it updates alternative turf grass varieties, limited to less than or equal to 50% of the total yard area for these single family residential lots.

Um and then on top of that, it adds some hydrozoning, soil amending, um, and efficient irrigation mandates or best practices.

So alignment with SB24-005.

Um, like I said before, this code needs to be updated.

This up this draft code will comply with those requirements for non-functional turf and invasive species.

Um then it also goes beyond that code by including single family yards and requiring specific plant coverage and irrigation standards.

Um in doing so, this new code will position Erie as a regional leader in water efficient community design.

Um and just an important note that bill becomes effective January 1st, 26th.

So right around the corner.

Next steps.

This meeting, um, we want to receive your input and direction at this study session.

Umce we've done that, we'll start outreaching with developers, builders, the general public, really anybody that wants to talk with us that's interested in this plan.

Um, or in this code.

The outreach materials were also attached to the study session, but it includes a code explainer, some FAQs, um, and a website to go live here shortly.

Um, and hopefully resulting in a de option in spring of 26.

And then pictured here below is just essentially that, but we're introducing it here.

We'll start the outreach um early next year is the compilation of proposed edits, another feedback and any editing of code as needed once we've received all those things.

Um and then building of resources, as I'm sure you saw in there.

There is the need to build out like plant lists and checklists and steps like that.

Um and then hopefully end of Q1 next year.

We have code adoption, we're doing staff training as necessary, and we're effective.

So questions, discussions.

Otherwise, thanks for staring at me and listening to me talk for a couple minutes.

And I think we'll do something similar just so it's easier um to know who's got the floor.

Um let's start with uh council member hoback this time, and we'll just work the opposite direction and just say pass if you don't have any questions.

Okay, thank you.

Uh just three simple questions that stem from your slide six.

Uh the reduction to 70% of live material plant material coverage from 75% seems rather small decrement.

What what's behind that or are there statistics that say yeah, that's an important number?

Or yeah, so we came to that conclusion after many, many discussions.

Um we felt that there are a couple of different concerns here.

If we knock that requirement down too low, we could end up with aesthetics and landscapes that we might not necessarily love the looks of um beyond just the general aesthetics.

If we don't have um healthy dose of living plant material, we start to worry about the heat island effect, we start to worry about storm row storm water runoff, general soil health, the health of our pollinators.

So from an ecosystem standpoint, I think that it's important to keep that plant coverage material or plant material coverage requirement relatively high.

Um but put a really heavy focus on what those plant materials are, right?

So we can have thriving, lush landscapes that do cover a lot of terrain, um, but that don't necessarily require a lot of water.

So it may seem like a rather paltry decrease, but um I think that given the rest of the code, it's actually where we want to be.

Okay, thank you.

That my concern was that we're would be pushing people towards more hardscaping, which is not necessarily positive.

Um second, um why the limitation of alternative drift grass.

Yeah, so you're asking why we limit that to only 50% of the total landscape area.

So that we didn't end up with just a ton of grass.

I wanted we felt that it was necessary to encourage diverse landscapes.

Um while still giving people the opportunity to have lawns and things like that to play in.

So um I think we came together as a team and decided that that number allows for a little bit of wiggle room in these landscapes um while still increasing the biodiversity in our town.

Okay, I agree.

That's great sense.

Sorry.

That's all.

Thank you.

Uh I guess I'll go next.

All right.

Um thanks for doing.

I know that's uh a lot of work that goes in and to this, all the research, what not I've got uh just a few questions.

Uh I know the outreach uh is going to be with developers and builders and whatnot going forward.

I would definitely would like to have a feel for you know if they feel what the additional cost would be per per household.

Yeah, I think there's a really important initiative, and I you know I'm glad we're we're pushing, you know, to to be you know at a very high level for water conservation.

I know what I I pay him my water bill each month, just in you know, I don't have a big yard, but um, you know you only water it once every three days and the garden, you know, it it adds up.

So um I think it's important that we understand the the cost added if there is one to developers because we're already see that we're on the higher end from for building fees and whatnot.

And you know, if there's areas where we can offset, you know, if there is an increase, you know, are there areas where we can offset that?

Um so that's one piece of input that I I would have.

Uh the other thing is, you know, I I think about there's homes with large yards and there's homes with smaller yards, right?

And a large yard, if you you know, 50%, uh, they still have quite a bit of area that you know for the kids and the dogs and and in play area, and but a smaller home, you know, with maybe that doesn't have very much backyard to begin with.

Um 50% could be um a significant impact, you know.

Like you say, I I actually bought my house because of the backyard, it was just big enough for the dogs to run.

Uh that yeah, I could throw a ball and they could they you know, run a little bit and grab it and go.

So I actually, you know, when I there were some homes that I saw that had very little backyard, and like, well, that that doesn't work.

Um I would say that I'm probably 65% um, you know, yard uh grass uh as is a portion.

So um, yeah, I'm just wondering is there a way to evaluate you know large yards versus smaller yards when when you you look at it.

Um I know 50% is probably a good number, and and other communities have used that, but um wanted to get some input on smaller yards versus larger ones.

Yeah, that's a really good thought.

Um and can appreciate that, you know.

Uh I just purchased a home, a big draw's backyard.

Uh so I really do understand that.

And I think it will be important to take lot size into account.

I think we have taken it into account in this process so far, but we can continue to do so.

This is very much still a living document.

Um, and then the only other thing that I wanted to be clear on your question on is um, you know, if you did have, for example, and if you had a smaller backyard um or a smaller lot size in general, if 50% of the aggregate was allowed to be still some sort of grassy material, that 50% could be your entire backyard still if you wanted to.

So I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page and we weren't talking about 50% of a backyard.

Um, or I just want to make sure I was taking your question into account properly.

Yeah, I mean that that was I guess my other question is what goes into the 50% of the landscaped area.

I mean, you you have the the you know alley, the side of your house, right where you have your gate and um whatnot, and then you have your backyard, you you might have gardens or whatnot, you know, cut out and trees there to take up that space.

So yeah, what what defines you know the landscaped area and and 50%?

I was just wondering if you had landscaped area definition off the top of your head.

Um it's more planning.

Come up to the mic, please.

Um I come up to the mic, please.

Oh, you don't know the answer, that's fine.

So Kathy Crohn, I'm with Parks and Recreation, the development and neighborhood services division manager.

Kathy, will you please put the microphone in front of you?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um so your question is what what is the definition of the total landscaped area of a single family residential yard?

Yeah, correct?

Yeah, it's a driveway part of the case.

No, I hardscapes are excluded from that.

So I think anything that's the built part of the lot and the paved part of the lot is excluded from that landscaped area, but I believe everything else is included with your side of your house, side yard from the typically don't have grass, right?

And then and then what about gardens?

That would be landscaped, right?

Yep.

So that would be part of the 50%.

Then in that case, it would be that would allow you to put more grass elsewhere if you felt so inclined, right?

Like if you were saying that the total landscaped area included your garden beds in the backyard or something like that, that would open you up to put more grass elsewhere in that landscaped area.

So in the front yard, the landscaped area would only not include sidewalk and driveway at to the property line.

And then everything that's not a house is landscaped area.

You can also the Sarah Normala Planning and Development Director, you can also count mature tree canopy.

So if you had gravel but a tree over that, that could count as landscaped.

Yep.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um so I just had a question about or a couple questions, I guess, about um process.

So you said that it would this would only be apply to new development.

So that means we have a couple of neighborhoods in process.

Um will this apply to the things that aren't built yet?

Or at what point, and I guess in the state in the planning process.

I'm sorry if I'm asking a planning question.

Oh like when at what point will this apply?

Um, so like if we take westerly, for example, your houses that are underway, they've already gone through the planning process.

Are they grandfathered in?

But then northwesterly, which hasn't gone through the planning process, isn't it?

We will need to figure out the details on the con the implementation and to what applications they'd apply.

We would in general, we would usually apply them to new applications, so that's not mid review.

So maybe even some of the neighborhoods that are already significantly if a neighborhood's under development, but let's say a new filing occurs within that neighborhood, then that might be something that we could make um you know, apply this to from the get-go.

So I wouldn't say that all existing neighborhoods under construction are lost causes for this that we'll be able to implement this well as development occurs.

Okay.

And then um so I guess enforcement would be through the through the planning process.

When we're talking about 50% of your side yard and backyard and front yard, I just is somebody gonna be out there with a measuring tape in a calculator.

We uh so we have not um fleshed out the complete implementation aspect of this code.

Um that's something that we need to refine.

But um there are a couple of things that we'd be looking at in the planning process.

One, we'd look at the site plans.

Um, and we would hope that we would um for a uh common areas be able to apply this for developments.

Um when it comes to single family detached, we um I'd have to look at whether or not we actually I don't think we actually look at those um landscape plans.

So that might be something that we need to work out.

Okay, it yeah.

All right, it's a this is not something that's as easy to um apply, particularly with just how we're structured with the permits and the site plan reviews that we have.

We do have code enforcement.

Um we do typically send out folks to look at um developments for which we have a site plan, but that's usually townhomes and or or commercial development.

So we'd have to look at how we do this for single family.

Okay.

Umitlement and building permit, probably, huh?

NSEO.

Yeah.

Um and so let's see.

Oh, you you mentioned that this would be triggered, or one of the slides talks about um that a current homeowner might trigger this with improvements.

Can you talk about what that might look like?

Yeah, so the redevelopment trigger as written is pretty stout.

Um it's a construction project that requires a building permit or site plan and results in the disturbance of more than 50% of the aggregate landscape area for the property.

Um so think like big additions or things like that, if they were relatively massive, could start to trigger this if you're um you know, making an extra bathroom off the side of the house or something like that, it would not be triggering this.

Uh yeah, David Frank uh director of environmental services.

I just to expand.

Yeah, this is not hey, someone wants to build a deck, um, someone's putting up a shed, um, someone wants to uh relandscape a portion of their yard through our current uh water saving uh you know rebate program.

You want to take out some grass and put in a vegetable garden.

That's not what this is.

This is yeah, half the lots getting scraped and and rebuilt, then that's more than 50% of the aggregate landscaped area.

So that's pretty much a new yard.

So then that would that would come into this regulation.

Okay.

Okay, that makes sense.

Um so I don't know, it it may it sounds like there may be updates a year from now or so as we get into the project and we see like here's how this works, or here's how we're going to enforce it, or um at the at this stage is when it's triggered and the development plans and stuff.

So it would be interesting to get an update on it later.

So yeah, um I would say we'll we'll be doing some sensitivity testing to make sure that we can actually implement elements of this and um that you know whether or not we need a new permit type or something like that.

So that's part of our next step as a crew together.

I also love how you guys coordinated that was brilliant.

Yeah, I mean, uh ideally, you know, you draft good code and it stands the test of time, but as staff, we're certainly not afraid of um, hey, uh we we wrote that it has unintended consequences and we need to revise that piece of that, of course.

So if I could just add to that a little bit too.

So the the big piece of this is Senate Bill 5, which is going into effect January 1st of 2026, and it does require um non-essential turf to not be installed for any commercial landscapes moving forward, as well as multifamily.

So it's already a big chunk of this landscape ordinance update.

The unique part of this for Erie is the residential component, which is really exciting.

Um and as Dylan mentioned, there's been so many conversations with the consultant team and staff, really looking at you know what makes sense for Erie, but also looking at our neighbors.

What's Broomfield doing?

What's Westminster doing?

What's Castle Rock doing, and really trying to find that best practice?

Thank you.

All right, thanks.

Um I think a lot of my questions are answered.

Uh I just had a couple procedural questions.

Um since is a UDC update, does this go before planning commission?

I thought we had uh Yes, it was okay.

So it is our I didn't see in the timeline like when we have to we'll add that to the timeline for the okay, just trying to figure out.

So I just say end of Q1 2026, we're talking March-ish.

So okay.

All right.

It'll also depend on that stakeholder outreach uh process.

Okay.

Yeah.

Um, you know, if if uh if residents, developers, if everybody reads it and goes, wow, this is this is dynamite, then we'll be bringing it at the very beginning of of next year.

You know, it'll be a pretty short process.

If there are a lot of issues brought up that we didn't foresee, uh things we need to work out, conversations that'll be had, then that'll obviously lengthen that process.

The goal here is to be thorough um to get uh feedback from all the stakeholders um and make sure that this is something that doesn't just conserve water uh for Erie residents, but also works for Erie residents and and developers in here.

Okay, yeah, thanks.

Um my only other question would just be I assume we treat the tree lawns the same way as the uh the rest of the landscaped area when calculating that percentage.

That's correct.

Okay, yep.

All right, cool.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you.

Um I had similar questions to Councilmember Mortalar regarding the costs on or how much this would impact the cost to residential unit.

Um so he already mentioned that.

I'd like to second his thought on that.

Um the second uh was the um the 50 percent.

And would there be any sort of I don't know if appeals process would be the right way, but for a resident to if they want to or have the need to go over 50 percent, is there a process or would there be one to consider we'd have to look into creating a process as it as it stands now?

There isn't a like an appeals process or anything like that.

Okay.

And my my last question was regarding artificial turf.

Um in SB 24005, they're pretty strongly against turf, um artificial turf, but that seems to only be in state buildings.

And does that apply to town facilities, but not to residential?

Yeah, so uh it's my understanding that SB 24005 was written only to um pertain to CII, so the commercial institutional and industrial, which is why I think they focus on it so heavily.

Okay.

Um the reason that we went ahead and pushed that further in this.

I we don't like artificial turf for many of the same reasons.

I have concerns about runoff, concerns around the life cycle of it, um, concerns about heat island effect and burning feet and stuff like that.

Um I've got a little kid, I'll get a couple of dogs, I don't want artificial turf anywhere near my house.

It's gonna hurt.

Um so that's why we went ahead and did this.

Um Does that answer your question?

Sorry.

I also want to mention the the uh phenomenal amount of microplastics generated by astro turf.

Yeah, um plastic landscaping in general.

Um if if if there are alternatives, I recommend them.

I I yeah, I I saw that in there.

So I just I was curious what what does this gonna be restricting um someone who wants to put in turf on their own house?

For new development and redevelopment, yes.

Okay.

And redevelopment was 50% of the 50% of the aggregate landscaped area needs to be disturbed as part of the project.

Okay.

And it needs to have a building permit and or site plan trigger.

So those two things.

Okay, all right.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Uh it's a great sustainability initiative.

And I had the same question as council member Baer on how do you enforce it because when new people new homes are sold?

Because when new people new homes are sold, people usually do their backyards like six months or later or eight months later, and they get HOA kind of approval and not a town approval.

So like you said, you'll give the details later.

So I'll be looking forward to it.

And I had a question about uh the alternative turf.

Have we considered clover?

It's eco-friendly.

It's a natural fertilizer and great pollinator.

So do we want to do some research and add that as an alternative?

I've seen some homes.

Looks pretty cool and very low maintenance and yeah, that's a really great thought.

I also really like clover.

I would say this list is far from exhaustive.

Um and we'll continue to add things to it.

Um, you know, there's clover, and there's also just the continuous new hybrid species that are coming out constantly year over year that could definitely be added to this list.

So yeah, this list is not exhaustive.

It's not everything we were are considering or would consider.

So 100% would be on the clover train.

Yeah.

And also it's um considered like a weed, but it is stronger against the normal weeds and it looks like normal gas.

I don't want to kick you out.

Yeah, I'm running.

You can't I just wanted to jump up real quick.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

I'm Andrea Carroll, water counsel to the town.

I heard a few questions about costs and impact to development and also lot size questions, and just wanted to speak to that quickly.

We are evaluating that.

We've engaged the town's water resource engineers at Dinatali Water Consultants, and they are evaluating the magnitude of impact on water conservation.

And with their analysis, we should have a better understanding of whether there might be the ability to reduce water dedication requirements based on these new practices.

So we are having that evaluated from an engineering perspective, and we'll bring that um final information to you as well.

All right, great.

I think it's back to me.

I think we went through everyone.

Um Andrea, I appreciate you coming up and ask or um talking about the water plant and what the demands may be.

It was certainly one of my questions on what if the uptick is um is good, right?

We're able to get many of the new lots covered under this and the water demands go down significantly.

Um I'm one of those people that had a lot of turf and I've pulled out um at least half of it.

Um a quarter of it has been replaced with a garden in the box, which is part of resource central's um offerings.

And not only do I have beautiful flowers there, but the maintenance is so much less than what I had with the turf.

So that's uh that's probably a long way of saying I'm I'm a big proponent of doing what we can in this effort.

Um and I think we're we're um what you share tonight is certainly getting us down that path.

I do have a specific a couple of specific questions.

One is the parking lot landscaping.

I didn't understand the minimum of one tree per 15 parking places and one shrub per parking um space, and that um let's see, parking lots cover a hundred spaces must have vegetative swallows.

Um how does that work?

Because I'm thinking about like the King Supers parking lot.

It seems to me we would have hundreds of trees in there, and maybe we do, and I just don't realize it at this point so mayor, um we do require some landscaped areas within parking lots.

Now depending on if you know when a project was built, um and when we updated our code for that requirement, there you know you may see areas that don't have that much um landscaping, but that is the intent.

We would have uh some aisles of parking would have uh actual planters between the parking aisles, and we also have on the ends of parking aisles some planters, and that's where you often see the trees located and the shrubs.

So it's it should be in there.

Um and sometimes we've had to go back and um enforce uh with some of our commercial developers that uh some of the trees are dead and you know, have to um go back and make sure that they're they're replanted.

So well, I suspect you've done that recently at Safeway because they had a bunch of dead trees and uh now they've uh started to replace them.

So I certainly appreciate that.

Um let's see, one of the things that we're here to do tonight is to give you direction, and I didn't hear uh anybody say they want this stopped or we shouldn't do it, so I think you have direction to keep moving forward.

So I think you have direction to keep moving forward.

I think there were questions about the implementation details.

And so before it comes back to us, either by memo or another study session.

I think it's appropriate to share how this would be implemented.

Um let's see.

Um the development costs, that's certainly front and center to my mind as well for the reason that we're looking at how do we keep housing prices affordable.

This one's kind of interesting though, because if there's an upfront cost that's a little bit more, like I think a garden in the box, it costs money to put a garden in the box in, but now it has saved me geez, probably eight years of paying water for that.

So in the long run, it was less.

And so, how do we balance that if there is a measurable cost differential?

Um, something that I'll be interested in learning more about as uh as the details come out.

Um when it would go into effect is also an open question, obviously not to be um answered uh here tonight.

Um and then a variance.

Uh what if um we have a situation where for whatever reason they feel like a variance is needed?

Is there a process we could go through uh to actually look at it in a reasonable pragmatic way and to say, does that make sense?

Um I think that would be uh helpful to understand what the feasibility of that is.

And then my last comment um is should we make this?

Maybe this is uh a question to um to Erica.

Um, should we make this an option, an incentive in some way for the older neighborhoods to move in this direction?

Um, because whether you save the water in a new home or you save the water in an existing home, the net effect is still the same.

And once again, I'm not expecting any um you know detailed answers on that tonight, but something to consider, just like we give incentives to get um uh new appliances that use less water.

Um, you know, those types of uh incentives may be helpful in something similar with this.

Um that is all I have.

Um are there questions for the council on just direction, or if I missed anything from council, please uh jump in.

Mayor, I just wanted to take an opportunity to uh allow Dylan King to um speak about his very successful turf replacement program this year.

Sure, that'd be great.

Yeah, just wanted to hop in real quick.

You know, you mentioned an incentive to help existing neighborhoods or existing single family homes get closer to what this code would put in place.

Um and we do offer our turf replacement rebate program.

Uh we replaced uh a little over 87,000 square feet of turf with low water use grasses and or landscaping this year.

So that's across 90 participants.

This is kind of its third and a half year in existence.

Um, and this was our most successful year, but we've had multiple years now with over 70,000 square feet.

So um that incentive is there and it's doing well.

I'm happy to keep pushing that incentive, but just wanted to kind of call out the fact that it's that it's there and it seems to be working pretty well so far at least.

No, that's awesome.

And I appreciate that detail that uh certainly I would have missed.

Um does the town um subsidize garden in the box as part of that, or is that totally independent?

Yeah, so the town also subsidizes garden in a box.

It's technically independent of that program.

However, every resident in the Erie has the ability to double dip, triple dip across multiple different rebate programs.

So for example, if somebody was going to go ahead and do some sort of turf replacement rebate program project, um, and they also utilized garden in a box, and they also bought their own drip equipment to do that project.

We would have been incentivizing the actual replacement of turf.

We would have been incentivizing the purchase of drip equipment, and we would have purchased a $25 discount for garden in a box for them on the front end.

So yes, yeah.

Mayor, if just one more thing to add, I think that we're Dylan and I are both really excited about.

Um is if you could just share a little bit about the new HOA program.

Um we're dabbling in a new pilot program that Resource Central is offering this year to help large landscape conversions for HOAs.

Yeah, so we're working with Resource Central.

Um we signed a contract with them.

They're offering two project or programs for HOAs and other sorts of large properties.

Um, one is just a more in-depth assessment than the assessment that they've already been offering.

So on top of on-the-ground irrigation assessment, they're also doing some mapping, imaging kind of stuff.

They didn't really dive super deep into it.

Um, but they're offering that as well as a consultation service for HOAs.

So that consultation will offer 40 hours of support to um HOAs that are apply for and receive this help from them.

And the purpose of that program is essentially to take HOAs from hey, we're paying too much money on our water bill and we want to replace grass all the way to we finish the project, and it's all of the handholding that goes for that every step of the way.

So we're hoping that that will free us up a little bit as staff to help HOAs out a little bit more because it is a huge lift to get those projects off the ground for them.

And also just hopefully get some projects actually on the ground.

All right.

Great.

Certainly the survey had sustainability as uh a largely supported effort.

So I think this all balls under that.

And I'll bring it back to council just one last time to see if there's any other items that I may have missed in just summarizing on where we're at tonight.

We're good, Mayor.

All right.

Sounds good.

Well, thank you all.

Um we'll look forward to either another study session or uh with the adoption of this coming back to us in the future.

Sorry, uh, Ms.

Thorley had one more comment.

Oh, I was just gonna offer if you all do come up with additional questions as the engagement continues and reaching out to these different demographics in the community.

Like please reach out to us.

The more feedback we get from you all, the more robust this ordinance update will be and the more beautiful our landscapes will be moving forward.

So thank you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

We'll uh move uh to our last uh regular agenda item tonight on 25516, the preliminary report on not north-south connectivity opportunities, county line Arapaho Road to Highway 7 options, and John Fruzi, our transportation and mobility manager, will uh uh take us through this.

Good evening.

Hello.

I'm John Feruzzi, Transportation Mobility Manager here for uh an update on the feasibility study that we had brought forward back in June.

And uh I have a series of slides just to kind of uh provide some background information about the process up to this point, as well as any kind of uh information about how we want to proceed forward and to keep you up to date.

So uh with that, I'll just kind of uh tee it up real quick with a uh quick recap of where we started, just as a reminder, and then uh we'll go through some of the information here together.

Uh just to uh uh get things started.

So um the interest around the feasibility analysis started with the uh ongoing housing development and school development, commercial development, and and growing regional traffic congestion in the area of uh Erie Airport and the Jason neighborhoods.

Uh some of the connection interests extended to safety considerations, emergency response needs, bike pad trail access in the area, and uh some of the concerns that we had uh heard um as part of the overall uh scheme here was that the roadway network impact with uh out of direction travel are impacting adjacent uh neighborhoods, and perhaps there's an opportunity that needs to be studied related to the roadway networks and possible connections in the vicinity of the airport.

So I have some information about kind of our initial audit related to the land use, related to the uh roadway network, relate to some of the traffic elements, and then how we started our process and providing just a general update uh for for the council here.

Do I have access to the slide deck?

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right.

So as part of the study area, we are looking at the vicinity of uh Erie Airport, uh, EIK, and uh the boundaries of the study area extend from Highway 7 on the south to uh roughly Arapaho Road and um uh Vista Parkway to the north.

Uh it also extends from about Bonanza Drive to the east uh to uh Cole Creek Boulevard on the west.

And so in this vicinity, we are essentially looking at the roadway network and the adjacent land uses.

Um the process is to evaluate all the possible options and for um for potential connections in this particular area and connectivity within the neighborhoods.

Next slide.

Thank you.

So as part of the process for our audit, we we do want to make sure that we account for safety within the area.

And I've got some information just kind of showing in the past five years what are the crash trends in the in the vicinity of our study project area.

On the left-hand side, you'll see that there's a number of icons in the legend that highlight either in red the type of accidents or crashes that would be considered fatal, or those that would be consider in orange, they're considered injury, and then hot spots that are in colors that range from light blue to uh dark blue.

This information is from crashing crash reports that get uh aggregated at the state level, and um as part of the process, they get documented uh for the entire metro region uh through this uh dashboard that you're seeing here.

So we took a snippet of it, and it's it's a five-year crash history showing essentially where the most frequent uh crashes are, and then also what types of crashes are occurring.

The majority of crashes are motor vehicle and in the uh area uh in terms of severity, the majority of severe crashes here, they all seem to be on highway uh seven, and then um the intersections, uh especially um those that are on higher volume roadways, um are the more frequent or higher frequency crash locations.

And so uh just to kind of uh uh make sure that I I cover this uh issue.

The sorry, let's go back up here.

Uh for crash analysis, we're we're not taking a deep dive into the safety information, but we just want as part of the screening, identify maybe what's happening on the roadways in the vicinity of uh where we're looking for the roadway connections just for awareness.

Next slide.

Thank you.

Um in this uh slide here, we're looking at the land uses as well.

And and part of this is related to the commercial or residential or uh other land uses, the civic land uses or parks land uses in this vicinity as well.

Our audit is uh trying to identify um locations that we have area or uh an opportunity for a potential roadway by highlighting where there is essentially potential for for that roadway alignment to go through.

Uh if an area uh has an entitled use, maybe there's not a building there right now, but there's maybe an application for development in progress.

We are removing that from uh consideration given that it's entitled land and only highlighting the areas where we can actually physically build a potential roadway connection in the future.

So just wanted to uh provide that also for context here.

Next slide.

And then in terms of uh regulatory restrictions, there are two elements here that are the primary uh uh elements that are introducing barriers to uh roadway connections in this vicinity.

And we wanted to just highlight that for your awareness.

We are documenting as part of the study what specific regulatory language is in play and how that influences the area analyses, but basically the uh runway has airspace and uh FAA regulations and Coal Creek has uh waterway related regulations that we're considering as part of this process.

So we're we're looking at those to make sure that uh they're documented as part of any kind of analysis that we're looking at.

It's not just the surface uh land, it's also the airspace and and also anything that's um subgrade here.

Uh next slide, please.

As part of our work, we're also looking at the intersections where we have traffic control devices.

Uh, some are planned, some are existing, and we're trying to highlight those uh as part of the process.

Um it comes to traffic control devices.

This is where kind of uh rubber meets the road.

Uh we have essentially investments that are going in through redevelopment projects or through capital improvement projects, um, some uh locations that have been studied and warrant analysis has been applied for stop control at certain intersections.

And the goal here is that we would be able to once again identify and document what is uh the condition as part of our audit related to existing or planned traffic control devices at these intersections.

Next slide.

So with that, as part of our process, we have arrived at a place where we we've identified a number of connectivity opportunities.

Um we are starting with uh potential alignment zero, which is on the left-hand side, a uh extension of Cole Creek uh boulevard that is part of an ongoing redevelopment project.

So that is identified just uh to make sure we document that, and then potential alignment one through ten identifies all the other possibilities that are on the table for analyses.

Um the goal is to identify as part of the process, as I'll say screen out uh any option that doesn't uh that that has conflicts and it would go through what we call a fatal flaw analysis and arrive at options that do actually show potential uh for connectivity in this vicinity.

Uh after we do that in an as part of this process, we will get into some of the details associated with the options that can move forward.

But we wanted to start at a level that considers all the possible connection points just to make sure we document that as part of our analyses.

Next slide.

So the project team has um developed a number of uh they've uh layered a number of the uh information that we're just talking about related to the land use and other kinds of regulatory restrictions to basic basically identify the areas where we have um we're running into fatal flaws.

So for the segments that are shown here on this particular side, these connections uh couldn't proceed given uh a barrier of sorts that has prevented it from moving forward.

Um either the land is again like permitted for redevelopment or that there's uh a regulatory concern of sorts that is preventing it from moving forward.

So we've screened out the segment one, two, um three, four, and five that you see here.

Um, and we've documented what that looks like as part of our report.

Um and so as we're kind of moving forward, we're building our report and identifying why each one of these segments won't work, and then moving into the segments that would work as part of this process.

So uh again, screening out essentially the the ones that don't make sense.

Next slide.

After screening out the um alignments that are faced with barriers and regulatory requirements, we have arrived at uh a number of alternatives that do show some level of uh connectivity and and um opportunity.

Alternative zero, again, it's part of our um existing conditions with the uh approval of a development project and a roadway connection that is moving forward with development.

So we're showing that just for reference.

Then starting at alternative one through five, we're showing the possible connections through the uh airport area where we would have basically some level of neighborhood uh connectivity and connectivity to the existing roadway system.

I'll go through each one of these alternatives uh one by one, highlighting some of the challenges and the opportunities, and from there I'll uh speak to kind of the next steps that we want to take with these alternatives as we move forward with stakeholder input.

Next slide.

All right.

So with alternative one, this is on the north side of the uh EIK runway.

Uh it basically looks at a um connection point into uh an existing neighborhood where uh currently that neighborhood has access to highway seven via Bonanza Drive.

Um as part of the process, this particular uh connection, it does present some uh uh challenges, and so it basically uh needs to avoid the runway protection zone and it's curved and uh would have uh some geometric uh uh questions and issues.

However, um with that also comes the uh complexity of a uh floodplain in this particular area.

Um that these these two elements, although it shows promise for connectivity, it has these challenges uh that would go with it.

Uh in terms of uh connectivity, it could uh provide uh some uh uh access related to a proposed uh connection point in the transparent mobility plan uh that's shown as a white line in this uh graphic here, and possibly take some pressure off of Vista Parkway if if that uh connection is established.

In terms of um accessing Commander Drive and Bonanza, there is a signalized intersection at Highway 7 and Bonanza, which is part of the rationale around this.

Um of the things that it does uh uh present as an opportunity is that it avoids the airport land uses and runway, but it does provide some level of emergency access if needed from a station that is located off of Bonanza Drive.

Um of the other uh elements that uh we're looking at related to this is that it does provide uh connectivity that mostly serves uh residential neighborhoods in nature and less so the airports.

Uh so just something to consider.

Next slide.

Alternative two uh shows another connection point uh towards uh bonanza on the east, and this one extends further towards the T intersection of Cantoline Road and Arapaho Drive.

Um as part of the process related to challenges, um there are some roadway geometric complexities with a bridge and underpass that would basically make this a challenging location with with curves uh incorporated.

There's some steep transitions uh at Cole Creek and under the runway.

It'd be difficult to go under and go over to kind of catch the slope.

And also it would require uh some extensive operations and maintenance considerations as part of the process.

In terms of opportunities, it does provide some direct connectivity between Arapaho Road and Bonanza, where uh it does then serve emergency response needs.

Also, this uh type of roadway would avoid the airport uh land uses, and it would align with some of the uh economic development and hangar expansion plans in this particular uh area.

It does for uh utilize the former runway alignment and right-of-way in this area, so um the FAA definitions uh you know could apply for specialized access or I'll say like partial access as part of this uh uh alignment.

So again, something to consider that we're bringing forward.

Next slide.

Alternative uh three also speaks to a connection point between um Canterline Road and Arapaho, where the T intersection would extend over towards the airport.

This in this alternative, there is a little bit of overlap between alternative two.

However, uh the difference is that an alternative three, the roadway alignment would feed into airport drive and serve the airport needs directly.

Um in terms of challenges, it introduces new uh traffic into the airport boundary.

It would um we would have to address some of the uh uh taxiway crossing challenges as well, and it would again require extensive operations and maintenance considerations given that um airport drive has a uh curved alignment and some slopes uh in the existing condition.

In terms of opportunities, uh it is a direct connection between major roads in this area, and uh it does connect Arapaho Road and uh Highway 7.

It does avoid uh impacts to the airport runway in this current alignment, and that um it wouldn't impact the residential neighborhoods uh compared to some of the other options on the table.

Uh it would uh potentially benefit the um economic development interests associated with the airport and its vicinity.

Next slide.

Alternative four brings us uh to the uh southern part of the airport, uh more towards the west.

And uh in this alignment, it would essentially extend from airport drive and its existing connection to Highway 7 on the south side uh towards County Line Road, uh, where it curves and becomes a Monroe.

Uh in this particular alignment um, as part of the uh evaluation, we see a few challenges associated with the existing properties and access points along and their access points along county line road.

There are also some uh steep transitions or slopes at Cole Creek that require uh longer bridge spans that we're we're anticipating with with this uh look that we've taken.

Um there is also uh a narrow existing right-of-way in this vicinity, so the number of lanes um is something that might be restricted or limited in this area, but we will evaluate that further once we get more into the alternative for evaluation.

Uh in terms of opportunities, it does provide uh a connection from Arapaho Road to Highway 7 with less interference with other properties in the area.

It also presents an opportunity for a roundabout intersection or speed management on Canaline Road when you have kind of multiple angled intersections coming or roadways coming together, roundabouts do start to uh present to make more sense, and that might be a potential option on speed management and mitigation uh for a major roadway like Count Line, as well as um it presents an uh it wouldn't impact the residential neighborhoods um directly in this case, but also serve some of the traffic to and from the vicinity.

Uh as part of the considerations also, uh there is a funded traffic signal uh at airport drive and um highway seven, where essentially uh the developer for uh a site within this vicinity is um uh uh as part of an agreement, uh planning to fund uh a connection point that would be signalized as part of the um uh growth of the airport commercial areas.

So it does present uh a possible opportunity with an investment there.

And then lastly, we have alternative five.

And on this alternative, um, it's kind of the same alignment.

Um this also extends from highway seven on the south up towards County Line Road and Monroe, where they meet uh at a at a curved angle.

Um in this uh in this particular configuration, um this could again impact some of the existing properties with their access points.

We would have the same uh grades and steep transitions and slopes that we're just talking about with alternative four.

Um the uh right of way in this vicinity is also a little bit on the narrow side, given some of the buildings and other things in uh that are established, and that um uh it would require realignment of airport drive and uh possible access restriction of airport drive at highway seven, given the proximity of intersections uh on highway seven being close to each other.

Um in terms of uh traffic progression on Highway 7, this is also something to consider.

Um we would have to follow essentially some of the CDOT restrictions associated with uh access management.

CDOT may not allow multiple intersections closely spaced in the same vicinity, so there may be other impacts to uh airport drive in terms of access with this option.

Uh in terms of opportunities though, uh it does uh improve, it presents an improved connection, a direct connection from Arapaho Road all the way down to Coal Creek to Highway 7.

So there's a major connection here as a result of this uh segment.

And it does uh again present an opportunity for a roundabout where Monroe, County Line Road, and Alternative 5 would converge at an intersection for essentially uh speed mitigation on County Line Road through um Monroe.

And then uh in terms of um uh impacting residential neighborhoods, this wouldn't impact any residential neighborhoods, but it also avoids impacts uh to the airport land uses, which may be a pro and a con at the same time, depending on their particular interests around uh access and connectivity.

So the five alternatives uh that we have on the table, uh the way we're proceeding forward is is presenting some of that information here with the pros and cons of each of those alignments to you with the intention to go out to stakeholders and have conversations around what this means to neighborhoods, to um developers, to the economic development side of things with the airport board, um, trying to understand essentially what are the stakeholder interests associated with the uh alignments, what it and capture some of that input as part of this process to make sure we're incorporating that as part of the technical analysis.

The goal is to uh identify as part of the process which one of the alternatives fits the best based on the input that we're receiving, as well as the technical details that we're looking at, and then from there uh proceed to detail out some of the information and see well, what is what would it look like with access points, you know, and some of the engineering standards, how would it all start to kind of shape out as we start to detail it, or is there anything that um needs to be considered?

And that would be as part of a uh 15% design um uh effort, uh engineering effort uh with with the preferred alternative.

I'd be able to then at that point bring that back to um uh uh to council and and we'll be able to report back on the feasibility study to identify what's the most feasible option uh that's on the table.

So I'll pause there and uh answer any questions related to the process up to this point, the alternatives that we're uh looking at, and any kind of um you know questions that council may have.

I may have put a yapping away on mute, so my apologies.

Thanks, very pro tem.

No problem.

Um thanks, John, for uh giving us uh the overview and some alternatives that I did not even know we were um having a consultant look at.

Um I think what I'd like to do is um start, let's see, I'll go in once.

I'll start with council member O'Connor, and then let's go to your right and we'll loop all the way around uh from there.

Thank you.

Um I really appreciate all these alternative uh suggestions.

This is great to get this visual in front of us to really get a sense of um what opportunities there are out there.

Um for me, I think the the main goal was to at least in it from what I've heard from residents, is how do we go in um basically replace county line road access to Colorado 7?

And looking at this, to me, it seems alternate four and five are the first two that really check that box off of kind of replacing that access point on from you know the removal county line road and replacing it with um one of those two options.

I'd like four and I'll say I like three because they both offer access to Colorado 7 and access to the airport without going out onto Colorado 7.

So it checks the box of emergency access without having to go out onto that highway and going back into the property.

Um I think one and two are problematic for a number of different reasons.

Umto residential roads, um a tunnel under the runway.

That just seems crazy to me.

I mean, I I love the idea of you know proposing it, but I I would have to think that would have to be really expensive to do that.

Is there any sense of cost of a tunnel?

Well, at this point, we're not considering cost as part of the exercise of all the possible alignments.

Uh so we're just trying to start with what are the possible options on the table and then screen it out based on complexity, which then adds cost and other things.

So uh I mean what we have arrived at is it's a challenge, but it's not impossible.

So we will continue with that until we get to a point where we have information about all the alternatives and which one presents the most feasible option.

Makes sense.

Well, I guess um for me I'd I'd be interested in pursuing uh four, five, and three, probably in that order if you're if there's if you were looking for some sort of direction or feedback.

Yeah, I I think it's uh I any feedback you like to provide.

Um I'm listening, uh, but obviously I'm also um here to answer any questions as well related to these alternatives before we take it out to the public.

I know that uh folks you know are uh you know talking to uh their constituents and and uh wanting to really represent some of the stakeholder input as part of the process.

So feel free to also share with me what you're hearing.

All right, sounds good.

Thank you.

Yeah.

Okay, and I think Council Motor Pastor Melody will go to the right this time.

Thank you.

Thank you for all the great alternatives.

This is solving problems, and I see these as uh number of ways we can look at it, right?

Thank you thank you for all the great alternatives this is solving problems and I see these as uh number of ways we can look at it right um but the first thing that came to my mind was like how much does it cost and uh I like ideas but maybe it's in Lamar and we cannot afford it.

So my prioritization is going on what is the straightforward and easiest way not easiest in the sense like what looks like a not so cumbersome project.

I like alternative five which is straightforward one question I had was like will there be a signal there.

So we're not at a stage where we have detailed it enough to to determine um if a signal would would work or not with any of the alternatives but that if there is one already proposed on the table we've identified it as part of the audit.

Now I'll say I'll say this I think with the intersection at alternative five um with highway seven and also uh plan signal at um airport drive and highway seven these two will present a conflict that we're gonna have to resolve through some C dot information related to their um signal spacing guidelines as well as some of their access requirements so to be determined I also like alternate three but looks fancy and looks expensive from the you know look at it.

So I five four and three all right okay Dia and Councilmember Hoback.

Thank you.

Um echoing council member O'Connor's comments um alternative one um since throughput is is one of the considerations I believe for the whole idea of a feasibility um putting that throughput through the airpark seems counterproductive um although council member hoback can you pull your microphone up just a little bit okay or I can pull my body forward yeah so alternative one um I would probably um not be terribly in uh enthralled with pushing traffic through um a neighborhood um and alternative three with a tunnel underneath the runway seems extreme um so again that pushes us to alternative four and five can you for you know you know for for my preferences um the bridge would appear to go pretty much from county line road almost to those hangars because we have to got a clear we have to clear Cole Creek.

Correct um do you have an estimate of how long that bridge might be uh I don't have that off top my head um I know we did look at the uh bridge and determine it was long but I'm I'm not sure exactly how long okay you could throw a number out there I won't know the difference but I think you um and when it comes to actually intersecting with Colorado 7 as you mentioned C dot will have to be engaged at what stage do we do that before we decide this is just folly um if they're not gonna engage with us versus yeah we can really pursue this as an alternative yeah so I think for uh C dot they they do have guidelines related to access management that we were applying so anybody including their own staff would use the same C dots requirements related to signal spacing access all the stuff that's already kind of spelled out for them it's a I'll say two plus two equals four kind of equation with C dot so we're we're already incorporating that into this analysis to identify what would be allowed or not allowed through the C dot requirements.

In terms of engaging them on the um I'll say modifications to their requirements uh to see if there's any bend or give or trade-offs um what we have so far is just basically shared information about it but we haven't received any feedback and we can certainly do that as we get closer with the alternatives to our preferred alternative just to see where that then lands based on their uh feedback they're part of the stakeholders that we would engage.

Okay.

Um more questions.

Thank you very much.

Thanks, John, for for the presentation and all the work uh on this.

Uh this is something that I'm I'm excited about uh for a lot of reasons, you know, to council member O'Connor's point, um, you know, to re-establish a road, you know, between a rapid hole and uh counting and uh highway seven, you know, when we lost the the ability to for county line road to go to seven, it it caused some issues uh well uh significant amount of traffic going down uh um Vista Parkway, right?

And so um yeah, that's was the first thing that came to kind of our attention.

But the uh the next thing was um you know the traffic going through Parkdale, right?

This uh it's a neighborhood and uh neighborhood that goes by a school.

Now, fortunately, the outlet to the school doesn't go on uh Cole Creek Boulevard, but it does go by the the school and the traffic and noise um there.

So that was the other uh reason why you like say I was excited about this project and seeing the the feasibility.

Uh so you know when I look at the the alternatives, I I agree with uh council member O'Connor and Hoback.

Um the alternative one, I don't see that solves it as many of the issues that um the other alternatives may alternative two uh going on you know underpass it seems to be you know pretty expensive uh alternate.

So kind of for me it's it's three, four and five kind of resolves the the main concerns you know that I have with the you know traffic going on Cold Creek Boulevard.

You know, we can even keep the heavy traffic away from the school by by establishing this and putting you know potentially weight limits on on Col Creek Boulevard, um, you know, to to prevent you know the larger trucks uh to go down this alternative route.

Um five, I think um is only problematic because of uh the traffic light, right?

There's gonna be one at airport and then another one at Route 5.

So I think from that alternative four and three would be the better choices and the bonus you get is potential economic opportunities, you know, with the airport.

Um so for me, I it it kind of um I I like the alternative three and four.

Um, you know, look forward to uh the engagement with the stakeholders and and their feedback, but one thing um I think would be helpful, you know, with that feedback is you know, obviously we don't have the cost of things, whatnot, but you know, maybe you could rank it uh one to five on you know where you you know you think you know this will be the most expensive, you know, based on estimates or or ideas.

Also um, you know, which is the better from a safety uh traffic safety and flow standpoint, you know, if it's possible to to rank that um as well.

Uh like say that's that's also very important.

And then you know, like say the the bonus would be uh economic development or opportunities um and how how each one of the alternate uh would go there.

So that's kind of how like I say, I really appreciate you know this project, and and I think it's it's really important.

Uh obviously, then we gotta figure out if it's feasible how we're gonna pay for it.

So there's always that.

Thank you.

Thanks.

Yeah, thank you, John, for the presentation.

I remember um when this came up when we decided to do the study, I think it was 132,000 for the study.

Is that right?

Um, so I appreciate all the work that's gone into it and the consideration.

Um everyone has said this is you know, my district, my neighborhood.

I have serious concerns.

Um, if we're trying to alleviate traffic concerns going through Parkdale, we need to extend those same considerations to the air park and Vista Point and Vista Um Bridge as well.

And so I think alternatives one and two aren't really our alternatives to put traffic through those quiet neighborhoods.

Um and then so with alternative three, I'm curious about the so all of these would have to cross um Cold Creek at some point.

And so I'm curious about the engineering and costs for bridges.

If there's one in particular that's maybe less engineering and less cost.

But I'm also curious about putting sort of the intersection of the of the road where we're trying to alleviate traffic.

So sending a lot of trucks through the area next to the airplane traffic.

I'm curious what that what consider what considerations are there as far as safety.

Do you have any insight on that, or is that just something we would figure out later?

Yeah, I mean, we essentially engineer the roads to serve a multitude of users, including trucks.

Um and I think when it comes to truck traffic, there are certain turn radii and other things that we would model as part of the curvature of the road and that kind of thing to just make sure that yes, indeed we are able to uh serve the flow of of commercial vehicles and trucks through an area.

But uh generally speaking, I mean, I don't think any of these options would prohibit truck traffic um with any kind of uh any any application of any of our engineering standards as they currently stand.

Now, when we start to kind of apply those details, we'll start to understand okay, what level of uh speeds are we talking about, what type of curves are we talking about, what type of restrictions, you know, are would we you know wanna consider and that kind of thing?

Um so at this stage, no, we don't have that level of detail, but that is something that we are planning to incorporate as we move forward.

Okay.

Um and then the considerations for Col Creek and the Col Creek Trail are really important.

That's a beloved amenity in our in our town and connecting us with other towns.

So I would want to be very cognizant of any impacts that we're creating there as well.

Um, and then I know you know the direct connection to Colorado 7 is complicated because that is C DOT's road and C DOT's intersection, you know, technically.

Um and I know in other communities that when there are intersections or close by on a state highway, the intersection becomes not a full motion, right?

So it's like a ride-in, ride out situation.

Yes.

Do you think that that's what we would end up with with alternative five?

I would say there's a strong possibility, yes.

Um, so on a similar project I've worked on with C DOT in the past, there were um conversations around essentially what would the restrictions look like.

And uh the two intersections that we were evaluating with that project presented the kind of um information from their uh standards that highlight uh you know either right and right out or what's called a three-quarter movement where you can make a left turn in, but you can't make a left turn out uh coming out of a side street.

Um as part of this process with the experience that I have, I'll be trying to um see what else we can do to accommodate the needs of our airport area and the development interests.

Um I have been successful in the past trying to uh establish an alternate option that does provide more movements at these intersections that are either coordinated with each other, um almost like two intersections operating as one or um provide as much access as possible.

So we're gonna try uh as part of the process to see how we can best serve the demand.

Uh usually it's safety considerations that become the key for access management, and that's why we have that safety slide and they're highlighting um the conditions on highway seven.

The town of Erie itself with the crash patterns that we're seeing, nothing significant in the neighborhoods that are in this vicinity, you know, really pop out with our crash history.

When you look at highway seven, that's really where the crashes are occurring, and I have a feeling that CDOT's gonna come at it from a restrictive perspective.

So we want to be prepared with that to say, yeah, it's it's very much a possibility that they'll want to see restrictions if we were to want to shift the full movement access or signalize access somewhere else.

What happens to airport drive?

It's likely they're gonna start with the right and right out um approach.

But we're gonna try to see what else we can get.

Yeah, okay, because I I do remember a fatality right there near airport drive just a couple years ago, maybe not even two years ago.

Um a pedestrian cyclist was killed.

And um, so I know that that area is super dangerous, and then up at Bonanza slash lowell where it crosses Colorado 7.

My kid's not allowed to ride his bike across that intersection because it's so dangerous.

Um we don't want to inadvertently impact create you know problems.

And so I know that you're well aware, and I I guess C dot would get involved at some point to look at all that information.

Um, and then also on airport drive.

I think you know, alternative four makes sense is from an uh intersection standpoint, and from maybe driving some business to um the airport.

I think that could be beneficial.

Um, but also that is an entrance to a neighborhood.

There are homes back in there, and they're used to more industrial traffic and uses.

Um, but I think that outreach with that kind of that group would be uh paramount or just transparency, I guess.

Um so and I would love to be involved in in that outreach since this is my district and this would be impacting folks, and I'm sure council member O'Connor would I I won't volunteer you for that.

So he has all this extra time he's trying to figure out what to do with.

Um but anyway, I I think you know, for me, alternative four is the one that jumps out as something that's possible and makes a lot of sense.

Um and and it does come back to cost for me, and and whether you know this is something that the community wants to spend money on.

Um and what the engineering and logistics are and and all of that.

But um, yeah, I appreciate all this effort and work.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Yep, thank you.

Um so since everyone's kind of said the same thing, I'll I'll just reiterate, yeah, I'll alternative one and alternative two.

I I don't think we need to bother with those.

Uh um number of things.

As a matter of fact, my our dear late friend Tom Van Lone, if you saw alternative one, would probably be on the phone with me.

Uh chewing me out.

Yeah, uh, but uh um just to provide a bit of historical perspective.

So for everyone up here, um alternative three is not new.

Alternative three was brought up in 2021 by the airport board, and it was really not intended to be uh throughput to uh highway seven, it was intended to be a new airport entrance.

As a matter of fact, if I recall right, there were three different options to alternative three.

I think this one might have been like the cheapest one that we figure out.

Um so what I propose, I I do agree about alternative four as far as the throughput to to highway seven.

I think there's less road to bill.

Uh, I know we we do have the Col Creek um you know how to uh span that bridge there.

Um that's obviously gonna be a significant cost, but I think you can tie into there.

Um I know they'd already planned on having the signalized um entrance to the airport there, so solve this.

So my proposal is that I I don't want to do like one of I think the my personal opinion, because I know the airport recorders gonna say this um the solution should be alternative alternate uh alternative three and alternative four.

And I know everyone's gonna say we don't have the cost to do that.

I agree.

The alternative three was a different funding mechanism that we had initially talked about, and I know um Councilor O'Connor, we we met with um Senator Hickenlooper staff uh sometime ago.

Uh it was back in March, you know, looking at different ways to fund a new airport entrance uh there.

So um I I think I I don't think we abandoned plans for that.

I think we need to look at that because part of that came with um uh building a new FBO terminal building, which again I know we don't we don't have cost for that, but it's it's kind of in the in the long range plans here.

So um but the idea of doing alternative three and alternative four is that you keep um the existing airport entrance, which will be important um for those those businesses on the south end of the airport.

Um and uh uh and then alternative three would be essentially for a new FBO entrance.

Um and the other thing that we had talked about on the airport board was that that uh also provides um uh extra support for uh emergency services uh to the airport right now.

Um we have uh you know, we do have a fire station on the south end of Bonanza that can get in there if for whatever reason, if they have a problem at that station, they can't get out there, they're trust deployed already.

Um it it's nearly impossible for both the North Bonanza station and the new proposed or the new uh station that's being built off uh Erie Parkway uh near Flat Irons Meadows.

Um they they would have to go out to highway seven and then back in.

Uh it provides emergency services for there.

That's an area where um you know very well we you know there was a uh a crash out there not too long ago that we needed emergency services there.

Uh there could be a potential fire out there.

Um, so I think that's important.

And those are also things that that we can um uh seek um uh grant funding.

I know at the federal level, grant fundings are to come by right now, but um those are the types of things that they look at.

So I don't think alternative three should be abandoned if we go for alternative four, but I do think alternative four as far as the diversion of traffic to solve the issue with um uh as you put a council member or Connor, the you know, going west to go back east and to prevent um spillover um you know onto Vista Parkway.

Um that would potentially alleviate it.

I think it'd probably be cheaper than alternative five, and then you still maintain that airport entrance.

So that's my two cents.

So we have to do that.

All right, I think it's back to me with this.

So right, yep, we got everyone.

Um alternative one's non-starter for me.

I certainly don't think that Cessna was ever designed to have significant traffic on it, and so um, I don't even see how a way you would do that.

Um, alternative two, I think is also out uh simply because of the underpass and the cost to do that, but equally important, um, we were told, I thought we were told, that when we were trying to put hangers on that land that we did not have right-of-way on the eastern end to actually put an entrance in from Bonanza.

This is showing that we do have a a right-of-way or some way to get in there.

So, John, can you clarify that?

What's going on on the eastern end on alternative two?

Um, so at this point, we're just showing the alignment.

Um, and I think if if you'd like to know more about kind of the previous plans, uh I'll call on um Julian to help out with the past uh analysis on access.

Yeah, that I think it would be helpful only because if I remember right, trying to get into the crosswind runway to do any kind of economic development for the airport was a non-starter because we couldn't get off a bonanza, and I'm surprised this alternative isn't in the list of the non-starters um because of that.

So it tells me that you've done some analysis or somebody's done some analysis that we can get through there.

Uh good evening, Mayor and Town Council.

Uh not Julian Jackwin, fantastic.

Uh uh public works director.

Um, as John said, we're just showing the alignment of what could be feasible right now.

Um there are a number of these options that will require right-of-way acquisition and property acquisition to make these realities in addition to the cost to actually build the facilities.

So um by showing these alignments, we're not saying that they are that we have all of the necessary property to do them.

We're just saying that from a feasibility standpoint, they are not off the table.

So I just wanted to clarify that.

Got it.

So there may or may not be a right-of-way there that we can even access.

We may have to acquire land to get the right-of-way.

It's we would have in that in that specific scenario, we would have to acquire property to be able to complete that alternative.

Um whether or not the property owners would want to work with us to make that a reality would be subject to further discussion.

Yeah, Mayor, from that conversation, there's five properties that block the crossbin runway from Bonanza Drive.

On the eastern edge.

Correct.

I think it's two on the north and three on the south or vice versa, but it's five properties in total.

Got it.

Hey, Julian, will you introduce yourself?

Yeah, sure.

Uh Julian Jack when directed back down to Melman.

Thanks, Mayor.

All right, cool.

All right.

So if one and two are out, um, I was asking all the right-away questions because then I got interested in well, hold it.

Can we still do economic development the other way?

Not putting the road through though.

All right, which leaves us uh alternative three, four, and five.

Um, alternative uh three is interesting to me because getting an entry way into the airport there.

I know it's been on the long range plan.

I spoke to Mayor Carroll about it.

Um it never dawned on me that that would actually put a connector in a right-away.

So if we can't do um alternative four, then um I'd certainly be um open to alternative three, although it would put more traffic going through the airport.

Um which then brings me to my next question, which is how do you mitigate airplanes crossing the road with traffic or vice versa?

Is there like a stoplight out there?

Is there do you have to do an underpass situation?

Um what do you do?

I can I can take this one.

Sorry.

Um so with regard to uh crossing the taxiway, there are uh control measures that we have in place out at the airport even now.

Um we would have to evaluate that further.

Um if that were a alignment that we chose to proceed with.

Um it would be a challenge, and we'd need to have a lot of uh control measures if we were to move forward with that.

So are the existing control measures?

Are they just lights or are they just stop signs?

It's mostly uh mostly striping conditions right now.

Um but yeah, there's there's a other mitigation factors that we could implement as well.

Okay.

Um so alternative three to me is only if we can't get alternative four.

And I say alternative four because I think alternative five is a non-starter with the light that is planned to go in at airport drive, unless airport drive is reconfigured to hit alternative five.

So I'm kind of looking at alternative four and five is the same thing, just with one point onto highway seven, not two points onto the highway seven.

John, does that make sense?

I probably didn't say that as clearly as I'd like.

Is it is it okay if I kind of repeat it back to you to see if I understand?

Yes, okay.

So I think what you're referring to is alternative five with a stub out towards air the airport drive, the current airport drive, where alternative five would be the connection point as shown, but it would extend over or fork over towards airport drive, right?

Yeah, so that our airport drive doesn't have to basically daylight on the highway seven at all.

It would go into this new road.

Yes.

Okay.

And I say that because I don't want a bunch of money spent doing analysis only for CDOT to come back and say, come on, you guys know better that you can't have a two lights that close to each other.

Um which is you know what I you know, based upon your input earlier, it feels like that's where we're headed if we're planning to go down that path.

Um then um the topography out there where alternative five is.

I've spent time looking at that, and it's amazing what the drop-off is to the west.

Um and actually you can kind of see it on slide nine.

Um where you have this kind of drop-off that alternative four just doesn't have to deal with.

And so for me, I I look at alternative four as the one to pursue, and then if feasible if it's not feasible either for cost or whatever reason, then alternative three, I certainly would be supportive of uh Mayor.

Um can I I I agree with you on the as far as this on uh alternative four is is a throughput, but all I ask, and I don't know if we can get agreement from council that altern I look at alternative three as a different thing, and so it may be something I'm not saying pursue it for you know throughput traffic for highway seven, but as a future airport entrance to be considered another time, and then alternative four would be the mitigation for uh bypassing Colkery Boulevard.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, so for the I'm I'm yeah, let me be clear that I'm looking at this primarily as the traffic mitigation.

Gotcha.

Yeah, okay.

Solving the problem that we've seen in the survey, and that you know, individuals have come to, I think all of us talking about the traffic challenges.

That should not preclude any of these other route ways if they're feasible for their own um reasons.

Gotcha.

Okay.

All right, John, let me look to you.

Um I think a number of alternatives have been pretty clearly taken off the table.

Um do you have questions for us?

Um no, I think uh I really appreciate the input here.

Uh I was actually wanted to just say I think I've um uh been listening in and trying to understand, you know, what what is the uh constituent interests that you all have been you know hearing and and what does that look like as we kind of go back out to to the community and do some engagement work.

Um I I can uh I'd like to be able to kind of share that also that we're we're listening uh as a as a town, and we're interested in all the input, so thank you for for that.

And I'll just mention also that um in I think July, the airport board was having a discussion around some of this, and there's just there's some fuzziness, you know, around these connection points and all the possible options.

So I appreciate your patience while we kind of systematically screen out ones that don't make sense or you know, for various reasons don't work.

So thank you for your time and effort here.

Thank you.

Yeah, you're welcome.

I also know there's landowners out here that are waiting for this decision one way or the other so that they can move forward.

Um so what is the timing for the the next steps?

Um yeah, so what we're planning to do is uh after this presentation to council, uh we'd like to start the process to do uh some uh engagement activities uh with stakeholders.

It seems to me like the uh southern alt the options on the southern southern end are uh more favored based on the conversation input here.

The options on the northern northern part are not favored.

Um that gives us the ability to kind of go back and refine our results and then and then get out there with specific uh stakeholders and have some conversations around their interests associated with this.

Uh in terms of timeline uh given the holidays, I think you know, we probably schedule that in January uh to be able to conduct that uh engagement.

So between now and then we'll kind of set up what page and our plan for for that identify who to talk to and and um uh start to schedule uh appointments for January uh to get into the meat of it.

And then uh once we have um a chance within a few weeks' time frame to have those conversations and get the input.

Uh it's a matter of wrapping this up with um uh the technical details, hopefully by the uh end of January or early February.

That's kind of the timeline I'm I'm uh uh assuming with at this point.

So there are some variables in there with uh stakeholder uh availability, but I assume that we'll be pretty much done by the end of January at this point.

Okay.

All right, unless there's any other uh questions from the council.

Um I think we're good on this topic tonight.

I I have one more comment that when you're engaging the community, um that you reinforce that we have an existing transfer place transportation plan in place and to let them know about alternative zero, which quite frankly is the only one I'll support.

Yes.

Yeah.

All right.

Uh with that, I'll look to our mayor pro 10 to take us into executive session.

Yep, thank you, Mayor.

Um move to go into executive session to hold a conference with the town attorney to receive legal advice on specific legal questions pursuant to CRS 2464024B and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develop a strategy for negotiations, and or instruct negotiators pursuant to CRS 2464024E and consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real personal or other property pursuant to CRS 2464024A, for which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of executive session.

All right, do we have a second?

Second.

All right, motion is second.

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye, aye.

All opposed say no.

Okay, the motion carries.

So go to the executive session, and uh we will conclude the meeting in executive session.

September is shaping up to be a busy month for cultural arts here in Erie, with new programs and returning favorites for the whole.