Recording in progress.

Town council meeting on April 28th, 2026.

Will you please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance?

Underground Indivisible Liberty and Justice for all the questions.

Okay, well, the town clerk please take roll.

Councilmember Pesamarelli.

President.

Councilmember Mortalero.

Here.

Councilmember Hobak.

Here.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Here.

Mayor Pro Timbell.

Here.

Councilmember Baer.

Present.

And Mayor Moore.

Here.

Mary O'Quorm.

All right.

Before I ask for an approval of the agenda, a couple um just announcements on the agenda.

First off, we do have an executive session tonight.

It has nothing to do with oil and gas.

I just want to put that out into the into the air at this point.

Second, we've added two items to our agenda on an ongoing basis.

And that is uh for the town manager to have an opportunity at the end of the meeting to address us on any items that may be pertinent, and the same for our town attorney.

So those will be standing items uh going forward.

All right, and then I'm gonna ask for a little flexibility in the agenda tonight.

We have an item on um the general business.

It's the first item, it's a proclamation, public safety for all residents of the town of Erie.

We are waiting for a translator, and so what I'd like to do is just have the flexibility to work that in when the translator arrives.

All right, with that, I'll see if there's a motion to approve the agenda.

Can you make that part of your motion to approve the agenda that you're making a switch?

Okay, so I'll see if there's a motion to approve the agenda with the flexibility.

Second, all right, perfect.

Who is the who is the first?

Uh uh councilmember Hobeck.

Okay, sure.

All right, all in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right, we have an agenda.

Um, we have a lot of items on the consent agenda tonight.

Uh so bear with me.

First item is 2026-289, the approval of the April 14th, 2026 town council meeting minutes.

Second item is 2026-309, approval of the April 21st, 2026 Town Council special meeting minutes.

Next item is 2026-24 mental health awareness month proclamation sponsored by council members um Mayor Pro Tembell and Councilmember O'Connor.

Next item is uh 2026-236 Older Americans month proclamation sponsored by Council Members Emily Bear and Brian O'Connor.

Next item is 2026-290 proclamation, 57th Annual Professional Municipal Clerks Week, May 3rd through 9th, 2026, sponsored by Council Member O'Connor.

Next item is 2026-243 Economic Development Week proclamation sponsored by Councilmember O'Connor.

Next item is 2026-104A, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving an agreement for professional services with frees and nickels for a water strategic plan update.

Next item is 2026 184, resolution of the town council of town of Erie appointing members to the Board of Adjustment.

Item 2026 254A, resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving a license agreement with the City of Lafayette for a temporary detour of the Col Creek Regional Trail.

Item 2026 257, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving a third amendment to the construction contract with AM Renovations, LLC for the Schofield Farm Barn Rehabilitation.

Item 2026 261, a resolution of the town council, town of Erie approving an agreement for the transfer of federal entitlement funds from the Erie Municipal Airport to Steamboat Springs, Bob Adams Field.

Item 2026 262, an ordinance of the town council of town of Erie approving a permanent easement agreement between Anderson South Farm LLC terminating an existing easement and granting a replacement easement.

Next item is 2026 263, an ordinance of the town council, town of Erie approving a permanent easement agreement between Far From Working LLLP to terminate an existing easement and grant a replacement easement.

Item 2026 275, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie appointing Elizabeth Barajas as assistant municipal judge of the Erie Municipal Court.

Item 2026 277, an ordinance of the town council town of Erie adopting an amending the town's purchasing policy.

Item 2026 286, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie approving a first amendment to agreement for professional services with Fox Tuttle Transportation Group, LLC for on call, multimodal transportation and traffic planning services.

And the last consent agenda item tonight is 2026 287, a resolution of the town council of the town of URI approving a first amendment to agreement for professional services with GJ and A LLC for on call, multimodal transportation and traffic planning services.

Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So we have a motion by the mayor of Pro Tem.

Second, and a second by Councilmember Montalero.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed say no.

All right, the motion carries.

Uh we'll move on to public comment.

Uh this is uh public comment for anything not on the agenda.

And so we do have a public hearing tonight.

If you're here for the public hearing, uh, this would not be the time for uh public comment.

This is the time for any other um topics.

And I'm seeing if there's anybody signing.

So I don't have anybody signed up for public comment.

Most everybody is signed up for a public hearing.

Okay.

Let me just ask is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this on anything that is not a public hearing tonight.

Yes, sir.

If you'd like to come to the um podium and just state your your name and uh location, whether you're an Erie resident or not.

Hello, my name is Diego.

Um, I live here in Erie.

Um I wanted to talk about the uh the Caldwell Reservoir and the recent um news that is just made.

And just talking about future um the future of our water here because we were certain we just recently were on a water restriction.

So I could tell that we were probably banking on this reservoir coming online very shortly.

And just wanted to understand how we were going to approach that.

Okay, and I didn't read my script of this isn't a time where we can do QA, but for the record, um it's on there.

I just wanted to talk about it.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, and tonight we can't talk about that particular topic.

No problem.

But we will be addressing our water um situation.

I will say for everybody the um the emergency water um don't turn your sprinklers on message that went out, actually had nothing to do with our ongoing water.

It had everything to do with the fact that we didn't have our summer allocation yet.

And so people were turning their sprinklers on in March, and the amount of water that was being used was a lot, and we were scared we weren't going to actually have enough water for normal purposes.

That time is passed.

We have our summer allocations, and that restriction was lifted.

Okay, we're gonna move on.

Thank you.

Okay, we are going to skip the proclamation for now, but we'll come back to it as soon as uh the translator is here.

So we'll move on to item 2026 260, a public hearing, a resolution of the town council of the town of Erie providing for the supplemental appropriation of money to various funds for the 2026 budget year.

With that, I'll turn it over to Sarah Hancock, our director of finance, and the public hearing is officially opened.

Good evening, Mayor and Council.

I'm Sarah Hancock, I'm your director of finance.

I am here alone this evening as Cassie is a little under the weather.

Um, so I'll be driving this to the best of my ability without her here.

Um, would like to share that we also have um all of our directors here um to answer questions on anything that we'll be adding tonight.

Let me lock my computer and get started here.

So this year, um, as I mentioned at our last supplemental, we split out our rollover supplementals with our new appropriations.

So what we're bringing tonight are additional appropriations to be added to the budget that are not rollovers from the prior year.

We're gonna go through our change request summary, um, the operating and capital requests, and then the offsetting grant revenue that are associated with the majority of these requests.

And then we'll take a look at our fund balance summary, our general fund um forecast, and then also our capital improvement forecast.

So I can actually say with complete confidence that this is the first time I've ever brought a supplemental change request summary with a negative number.

Um we are actually reducing the overall budget uh for the town by 39,763,000 and 944.

Um, this is due primarily to deappropriating the funds for the water treatment plant.

And the majority of that funding was cash going back into the water fund.

There was also a part of that that was planned to be bond funded.

That's why you won't see a one-for-one in that change.

But overall, we are reducing the town's budget.

There's primarily some new operating in the general fund.

And then many of the other projects that you'll see are offset by grant revenues.

So for new operating requests this year, we are looking at two additional attorney positions.

This is primarily to right size the attorney's office that we now have in-house.

I would also like to note that this will very likely have offsetting revenues in future years, simply because we would be using in-house counsel rather than outsourcing our council.

We also have appropriations for our ERE B, which you've probably seen driving around town.

We also have some reimbursements with Boulder County we're appropriating as well as street light standard and specs.

We have some grants funding that is coming in and the expense, the associated expense for our therapeutic recreation program.

We also have some consultation services that are needed for our appraisals over at for our Trails and Natural Areas Fund and also some appropriations related to our water fund, primarily the Boulder City of Boulder water lease, but also right sizing a water resource manager that needed to be graded properly in order for us to actually recruit for that position.

For capital requests, these are primarily related to ongoing projects that have either changed in scope or we've seen some needs.

We have some shelters at our open space.

We also have the barn rehabilitation at Schofield Farm, as well as the acquisition of coal minor park.

We have some trail connectors as well as the reduction of our deferral of the Coal Creek Rates Trail, which actually offsets the barn rehabilitation at Schofield.

We also have the excuse me, I'm not need to scroll.

Yeah, the public improvement impact fund also has a reduction to the page property.

That is just pulling that funding out from the appropriation and allowing it to be freely used for other projects.

We do have some funding going into the URI Community Center Edition and the Year Community Park, and then also some funding for the Lost Building.

And then finally in the water fund, this is where you see that very large 161 million dollar deappropriation, as well as a de-appropriation for the well project.

And then in other funds, we do have some Schofield site improvements in the parks improvement impact fund as well, as and as well as our pavement maintenance project for the airport, and then also some trees that will need to be purchased for the Schofield site.

So what's important here is a lot of these do have offsetting revenue.

As you can see, we're going to be receiving in the general fund our ERE B Flex Ride grant, our recreation grant for the therapeutic program.

We have our Sunset Area Plan and the Schofield Farm grant that's coming in from the Parks Improvement Impact Fund.

We also have our solar at the North Water Reclamation Facility that is come in, as well as our airport funding to upgrade and reclose relocate our vault building as well as some pavement maintenance.

And then here is our fund balance summary.

I have to caveate caveat once again that we are in the very center of our audit right now.

So the beginning fund balances are still the previous year's fund balances.

So those will be updated.

My hope is in the next two to three weeks.

And we changed this up a little bit to make it a little easier to see the sources and uses for the general fund.

Just want to note here that our general fund beginning balance at this point is right around $33 million.

We have our revenues and our supplemental revenues that are increasing that.

So this is our fund balance forecast at this point.

It looks about the same as what we've previously seen.

Of course, as we get closer to 2029, uh 2030, we'll have to continue to have prioritization conversations around how we balance the budget.

But in general, uh we are still seeing pretty you know flattening of some of our revenues, however, consistent and ability, a consistent ability to continue to meet our debt demands, our operating and our reserves.

And the infamous general uh CIF forecast, again, this one is um funded up through 2028, and then we do see a drop-off in funding.

These are large projects that um past 2026 are not technically funded.

Um so we'll continue to have prioritization conversations as we get closer to the initiation of those projects.

And so with that, I am happy to answer any questions that you have.

And again, we have directors here to speak about specific projects if you have more detailed questions.

All right, sounds good.

I'll first see if there's anybody here tonight to speak in public comment on our supplemental budget.

All right, see, and then we don't have anybody signed up.

All right, then I will.

I'm sorry, okay.

Yep, come on up.

And if you just state your name and whether you're an Erie resident or not.

My name is Claire Scott.

I am an Erie resident.

Um I wasn't planning to speak, but looking at the slides, I have a question.

And since this is on the agenda, I think you can answer questions, correct?

The council can ask questions.

So let's put it out in into the into the air here, and we'll see if one of the council member picks up.

Okay.

So I noticed uh there was uh a reduction in plan budget for the page property.

Uh can you speak to why that's being reduced by over a million dollars?

Okay.

We're gonna bring it back to council and uh we'll uh ask our questions.

Can I just say I'm very excited that is the first time we've gotten public comment on the budget since I've been here and I'm very thank you so much.

Congratulations.

All right, bring it back to council for questions.

Council Hobeck.

Oh, Director Hanacock, what was just asked.

Yes, I'm happy to answer that to the best of my ability, but I might have to defer.

My understanding was that that was just reducing the funds to make them available for projects that may um be associated with but weren't tied up in one appropriation.

And so with that, I'm gonna allow David to speak a little bit more uh pointed at that.

Thank you.

Uh good evening, council.

Uh David Passick, public works director.

Um the public facilities impact fund had money budgeted with the plan that we were still waiting on council's direction on whether or not we were going to proceed with the plan design for a parks and open space facility at the page property.

That's what that money was budgeted for with the direction from a study session from the previous year.

We decided that uh or the direction that we received was that that was not going to have support to move forward.

So we're reducing that out of the page property line item, and we're transferring that to um proceed with the ECC expansion, um, another ECC project, and then also starting to look at laws more comprehensively for future expansion projects.

All right.

Actually, on that note, I can just pull this right up here because you can see them offsetting um right there.

So you'll see that that reduction on the page property and then the eerie community, the eerie community center and park and laws are right there.

Those are the ones that are reappropriating.

Okay.

Awesome.

Councilman Hobeck, you still have the floor.

Yeah, thank you.

Um just one other question on the water fund, the 222,000 dollars for the boulder lease water lease city of Boulder Waterways.

Is that a new lease?

Is that an increase to an existing lease?

What I believe that's an increase to our existing lease, but I'd have to defer to Todd on that.

Um I don't think he's in here at the moment, but I'm happy to get that information for you.

Okay.

Yeah, I'll send out a note into the ether real quick.

As far as you know, it's just an increase in price or more water or I believe we renew the lease um periodically.

So let me check with him and we can I can find that answer while we're going around.

That's all.

Thank you.

Of course.

Okay.

Councilmember Baer.

Thank you.

Congratulations on your first public comments.

Exciting.

Thank you.

Um I was curious if you could um kind of walk us through the general um the CIF forecast slide.

Um, I think that that one has caused some alarm in the community before.

So I just wanted to.

Yes, absolutely.

Sure.

Um, I think one of the biggest distinctions with the CIF forecast slide is that this is the general fund um capital improvement fund that is the is solely funded by the transfer from the general fund when we have excess fund balance available for that purpose.

Um so it doesn't actually represent the entire capital improvement plan, um, which is uh encompasses the utilities funds, um, all of our impact funds.

So those are many, many capital projects that are fully funded or have fund balance available for future projects.

So the CIF forecast, however, is really dependent on that available fund balance that we transfer over for mostly at this point maintenance projects.

The majority of what's in the general CIF at this point is our pavement maintenance, our concrete maintenance, and then maintenance for a lot of our recreations and parks properties.

Um so what you'll see there are some uh planned projects in 2027 and 2028 that may or may not come to fruition simply because of timing um or funding availability.

Um but the projects that are currently funded in there are those primary uh maintenance projects.

So I think it is important to look at and say, hey, obviously the the things we have planned in the future are not um we are not able to do them with what we know um we will have to transfer.

Uh that said, uh things always change, projects always change, and we have to also look at the future plan and make prioritization decisions and understand that um some of the things that are in 2028 and beyond may not ever happen and could offset some of that negative balance.

Um I'll also say that part of the process of the budget is understanding that once we have um the operating budget balance, if we have needs in the CIF, we do have to consider if there are other areas in the um operating budget that need to um be reduced or reconsidered and prioritized if we have a capital project that is a critical need.

Um so and that's part of the trade-off of of the structure of how we currently have the CIF funded from the general fund is having to consider operating in capital and kind of a um uh a tandem and uh trade-off conversation with priorities.

So I hope that that helps.

I know that it's uh a little um daunting to see the line go below.

That's never my favorite either.

Um, but to that point it does not represent the entire capital improvement plan um for the town, and for the most part, we have a very um strong plan with lots of funding sources that are quite diverse that are able to fund the majority of our projects.

Thank you.

You're welcome.

Um, my only other question was about the IDD grant expense was 36,000.

I assume that's like matching funds.

Yes.

So my understanding is that that is the um appropriation for the expenditures associated.

There is excess revenue, I think coming in from the from the grant, but uh that might be offsetting current expenditures.

So I would have to defer to Charlene on that.

But yes, generally that's a it's a one-for-one.

So it might be that it's offsetting expenditures that are already appropriated.

Okay.

Okay.

Um that was it for me.

Okay.

All right.

Councilmember Mortilero.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Sarah, for putting this together.

Always appreciate it.

Um the 275,000 for Erie B, is that offset by the 740 uh thousand grant that we we got?

That's correct.

And and shout out to our folks who who go after these grants.

They've done a great job, both uh uh Schofield and uh and the ERA B are very large grants that that we were um gonna help us out nicely.

From what I hear, they had seven riders on the first day and 40 riders by the fourth day.

So uh it's taken off.

So that that's great.

Uh other question was um on the trail connectivity.

Uh I believe it's the Allen Allen uh farm trail and uh compass trail uh adds up to 533.

That's new to that's in addition to what we had put in the 2026.

Yes, that's in addition to.

Okay.

And do you know how it breaks out between the two or I'm not sure, but I believe uh Charlene's back here for Luke Bolender, who's not here tonight, and I believe she has details about what parts of what trail encompass that.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council, Charlene Laroy Business Services Division Manager for Parks and Recreation.

Um it breaks down 110,000 of that was actually money that was in the 2025 budget that was not used, so it went back to fund balance.

And that will be used for uh compass trail connection.

Okay.

And then the 423,000 is additional for Allen Farms.

We just got 90% design and it was more than we thought.

Okay.

So to finish that off or get that going, we need to thank you.

Because I remember the compass being in in the 2026 and so uh uh that helps clear it up.

Yep, you're welcome.

Thank you, Shallen.

Councilmember more clearly.

Thanks.

I'm sorry.

No, that's okay.

Mayor, I I will say that Director Fessenden is here now if you'd like the other question to just throw it right in the fire.

Thank you, Todd.

Uh Todd, just to recap the question, is about the boulder water lease.

If you could just explain why that's different from our prior leases.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thanks.

Sorry, I'm late here.

Uh Todd Fessenden Utilities Director.

So the Boulder Water Lease Um is a 10-year lease, and we activated it this year.

And it's uh so we can lease water that boulder is currently storing in Boulder Reservoir, and it's about 37, it's 370 acre feet.

And so that's backup supply for us.

And we can call on that water, we can carry it carry it over by a year if we need to as well.

Were we not anticipating this when we did the original budget?

Or um it was I think the terms were negotiated um before the budget was done.

Thank you.

And and the cost of the lease.

So okay.

Thank you.

Thanks, I'm sorry.

Mayor Proton?

Yep.

Thank you.

Um second to the fund uh general fund balance forecasts and the CIF forecasts.

So do we have an idea of where we've had multiple rollovers of of an item that carried over multiple years?

And then is that I guess my is that maybe compounding our problem with uh Yes.

Um it's a great question.

I I think that what we see when we see something that's rolled over more than two or three years.

Um, I know that we do ask the question of you know, what's going on with this project?

Is it escalating costs?

Is it delay?

Um previously we had a practice of budgeting the entire project at the time of um of the year that we plan to begin it.

Um we've gotten into a little bit better of a practice of of splitting that up over time.

So we're seeing less of that, frankly.

That's why you've seen the rollovers decline over the last few years.

We've gotten a little bit better about you know, spacing those out and understanding how much we actually need in the current year.

But I've always explained that the way rollovers work, when you pull them out and then you kind of set them on top, they're like a bouncing ball.

Um, and it can sometimes in the middle of the year inflate your appropriation slightly, and then it'll drop back down because then your fund balance, you know, you're pulling it back out.

So um it it feels a little complicated and daunting sometimes, but it it it truly is just um you're pulling it back out of the fund balance and reappropriating it.

It doesn't actually impact the fund balance over time as long as we're not appropriating more in our supplementals and our budget process than we have available in fund balance.

I hope that makes sense.

Yep, yep, yeah.

Perfectly.

Like I said, just imagine your rollovers are your little bouncing ball over the top that are kind of always there and ready to be appropriated.

Yep, yep.

And then um I guess I mean it's hard to imagine because it feels like 2026 just started and yet we're almost six months in a year.

Um so when we get into the latter half of the year, we start looking at 27.

I guess I remember in 24 looking at the 25 budget, we really um we we really looked at opex and really kind of pared down on that.

Is that maybe something we're gonna have to look at this year to me and maybe that will help in some of the out years?

So yes, um, that is definitely something we're considering for this year, as many of you know.

Um we have a lot of geopolitical issues in the world.

We have um sales tax that you know is while still growing is flattening.

Um these are just the realities of of the economy right now.

And so because of we're watching those things very closely, we do plan to bring to the council what we did last year, which are what we believe are good revenue assumptions.

I would love to have Wobkind come and talk about um what he has seen in the economy.

I actually got to see him last week at a conference.

Um, and we're using a lot of that information right now to build out those assumptions.

So all of that to say absolutely we will be having to approach the budget um, you know, very fiscally mindful this year.

Um and we do plan to start from that place.

Um and we'll certainly update you as we go along the process, and of course, we'll have a lot more information when the study session comes up.

Sure, thank you.

Of course.

That's all I got.

All right.

Councilmember O'Connor.

Uh thank you.

Just uh one question.

Um regarding the grant funding, have um have all those come in or okay.

That was I just was yes.

Yes, those are all grants that we have been awarded and that we have either signed the contracts for, therefore the uh actual payment is imminent, or the payment has been received.

Okay.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay.

Councilman Petersonelli.

Yeah.

On the spring supplemental general fund.

Uh data.

Two line items for unbalances.

One is non spendable and spendable.

I gotcha.

So what spendable ones?

This one right here.

Yeah.

Okay.

So uh what are the categories like what is what is spendable and what is not?

That's a great question.

Like so are required, we cannot spend those down.

We have to keep those available.

And then our spendable fund balance is what's truly available after that Tabor requirements of keeping those reserves in place, which is approximately 3%.

It changes every year kind of based on the calculation that the state provides us.

Now the spendable fund balance is technically what you have available to you before you have any of your code requirements for fund balance.

So in our case, the minimum required fund balance is actually about 14 million because we have two reserves that we keep in place a contingency and an emergency fund.

Those I believe are at 11% and 15%, give or take a percentage or two.

And that's why you see that.

So technically, while we are able to spend it, it is restricted to the council's authority to free it up.

And that's where you actually end up with that unassigned fund balance because we go ahead and keep that minimum required fund balance safe and secure for emergencies or when the council feels that they need to release those funds for use.

So does it include the C OPS payments that we have?

That's a great question.

That's actually up in our uses and our operating and debt expenditure.

So under that 64 million, that's where you'll find all of our debt expenditures and those are accounted for.

And we do keep those in the forecast in perpetuity as a component of our sources and uses.

Thank you.

You're very welcome.

All right, if you can go back to the CIF.

Absolutely.

Because we don't have enough money to do it all now.

So I think about the Rec Center expansion and remodel.

And right now we are actually testing, if you will, um the community's um desire to actually increase our sales tax to possibly cover that cost.

So that'd be a great example of raising taxes in order to cover one of the costs.

Um we've spoken about a second recenter, um performing arts center, senior center.

Too early to even know everything that would encompass, but the money would have to come somewhere to fund that.

Um we've spoken about a north-south road connector, possibly airport drive connecting to county line road.

We have a study session coming up on that to help staff uh with direction and whether we want to do something there or not.

But that also encompasses um other road construction that may not be funded otherwise.

Right now they're at um Arapaho and 111th.

There's uh trendlanes being put in.

Um that's the intersection that backs up.

So when people are coming into Erie off of um Arapo and 287, um the goal is to get that fixed so you get better traffic flow, but that had to be paid for through some type of capital coming in.

Uh the FBO, the fixed-based operations out at the airport.

Um, that building, I think we've said in public comments that it's pretty much beyond its useful life.

And at some point we've got to do something out at the airport for the the operations of the airport.

Um and then maybe the biggest one on here, maybe it's not the biggest, maybe the second rec center would be bigger, I don't know.

But the Leon A will World Service Center, uh, which is where public works and parks operate after out of you can't double the size of your town and double it again and still expect us to operate um in the facilities we have.

So at some point that's gonna have to be um expanded.

And then so I think about well, how do you pay for that?

There's really three ways that I'm aware of.

There, there may be some others.

Um you either raise taxes, that could be property taxes or sales taxes.

Um you could reduce services.

So I think that's what the mayor pro tem was um talking about uh somewhat by actually cutting services and you're cutting operational expenses that way so that you can use the money for um capital improvement.

I don't think most of us want to do that.

That's uh that changes the feel of eerie, and I think of all the parks and recs and all the fun stuff that we do.

Um that's part of the small town feeling.

So that's if we ever went down that path, there'd have to be some serious reasons, I think, for uh all of us to consider that.

Yep, sorry, I'll I'll bring it closer.

Is that better?

Yeah, all right.

Sorry about that.

Um or and then the last item is that we find other sources of funding, right?

Grants, um, you know, uh the state, the feds uh to help us, which they have over time in other situations.

So either even though that graph that is up looks pretty dire, I think we have tools in the toolbox, and we'll get to the point where we can talk about okay, what are the priorities, and then what are we going to do in chunks of time?

All right.

Um with that, I will close the public hearing.

Um and I'll see if there's a motion to approve resolution twenty-six zero ninety.

Move to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second.

And did you get the second?

Okay.

Uh any further discussion.

All in favor, say aye.

Aye.

All opposed, say no.

All right, the supplemental budget is approved.

Thank you so much.

I appreciate it, everyone.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

All right, I think our translators here.

Is that right?

So, Mayor Moore, if we could just take a few minutes for her to set up.

I'm not sure if we have anybody who needs translation services.

You want me to just make an announcement in Spanish?

I think she's raising her hand.

Okay.

Somebody is.

It just takes a few seconds for her to set up, so I don't know if we want to take a little break while she sets up.

Yes, are you are you thinking public comment on this particular item?

Um, no.

She's gonna translate the proclamation.

Proclamation, yes.

Okay.

We're all right.

And she'll be um simultaneously translating the meeting for your back here.

Okay.

Okay, and maybe we can turn up the um the volume as well.

There's a a balance there, but I appreciate everybody letting us know when you can't hear.

Can I just make an announcement?

Yeah, why don't you come use this?

Yeah, if you can use one of the microphones.

Thank you.

Uh watching at home or listening at home, um, we're just getting translation services set up, and then we'll start again.

I'm sorry.

Can I use sign real quickly just to let people know that they need absolutely email?

Hi, my name is Laura.

I'm sorry that we couldn't find an ASL interpreter.

Um a little ASL.

So if you want, you can move on to item 2026 301 proclamation public safety for all residents of the town of Erie.

It's sponsored by myself and all of the council tonight.

The proclamation is a public safety for all residents of the town of Erie, whereas the town of Erie is committed to upholding the safety, dignity, and well-being of all residents, including families who may experience fear or uncertainty related to federal immigration activity.

And whereas the town recognizes the recent events have caused heightened concern among some community members, particularly families of color who have expressed fear for their safety and stability.

And whereas the town of Erie affirms that all residents, regardless of background, language, or immigration status, deserve to feel safe, accessing schools, parks, public services, and community spaces.

And whereas the Erie Police Department and town leadership remain committed to practices that prioritize prioritize community trust, safety and transparency, and do not engage in civil immigration enforcement activities.

And whereas the public trust is strengthened when local government communities communicates clearly about its role, its limitations, and its commitments to the people it serves.

And whereas the town of Erie seeks to foster a community where every resident feels seen, valued, and protected, and where fear does not prevent families from participating fully in civic life.

Now therefore, the mayor and town council of the town of Erie do hereby proclaim the town's commitment to acknowledge the fear expressed by families in our community regarding immigration related activity, affirm the town's role in promoting safety, stability, and access to public services for all residents, and to communicate transparently about town policies and practices that support community and trust and uphold the constitutional rights of every person living within the town at Erie.

Dated this twenty-eighth day of April twenty twenty-six.

Um I was asked to read something by the town attorney today.

Um today I received an email from a resident.

Um principal planner for the town.

16 acres are proposed to be zoned to AP or airport.

18 acres would be CMU, and then another 26 acres would also be CMU.

And they're divided out through the minor subdivision plat, which I'll show shortly.

Sorry.

Can you hear me?

Sorry about that.

All right.

So what they're proposing are three tracks on the subdivision.

The existing zoning is low density residential and community commercial.

The site is currently undeveloped.

So here's the flow of the development review process and where we're at.

The property's already been annexed, initial zoned.

It's had some history on it that I outlined in the staff report.

But currently we're on this rezoning process, and it also has the concurrent minor subdivision that's creating tracks.

And so just to be clear that tracks are undevelopable lots or parcels that are ineligible for building permits until they get further subdivided into lots.

So if they're successful tonight, there's still be several application processes that will need to be done to include preliminary and final plating, site platting, site plan, sorry.

And then if those are successful, there'd be a public improvements permit, and ultimately building permits would be the end of the line on the development process.

So I'm gonna go over the background briefly, then we'll talk about uh their proposal and then offer the recommendation that we received from planning commission, and then the one that we're offering is staff.

So the site is northwest of Highway 7 and Bonanza Drive, and it's highlighted in the red on the screen.

There's air park residential to the north.

There is commercial directly across the street.

There's a gas station, a daycare, and a storage facility.

And then also across the street, there's an uh unincorporated area that you can see that's in white.

Uh there's zone for agricultural, and they have a single family home and some agricultural uses on them.

Um here's a few shots looking in the area.

This is north on Bonanza, so it's standing across the intersection from seven and bonanza.

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

And then this is looking more west into the site from Bonanza and Seven.

And then this is a little further north on Bonanza, approximately across the street from the storage facility, looking uh west across the site.

So here's the existing zoning map for the site and surrounding area.

Site itself is zone low density residential.

That's the kind of orangey that you see on the screen, and then community commercial, which is on the northwest corner of seven in Bonanza, and that's the red that you see on the screen.

So the um uh low density residential would allow uh densities of three to five dwelling units per acre.

It only allows single family detached and duplex uses.

And then the community commercial area, the existing zoning would allow a full range of community-oriented retail and service uses that could potentially be located there.

Uh this is the comprehensive plan map for the site.

Uh, most of it is designated as employment.

That's the purple area in the map, and there's some corridor commercial, and that's the red that you see on the map.

Employment areas uh are uses that generate employment, such as industrial flex space, uh, potentially light manufacturing, medical, technical facilities, aeronautical and incubator spaces.

The community or the corridor commercial are uses that generate regional activity along highways and major arterials, obviously for commercial uses.

Residential use is a secondary use that could be contemplated within the employment area.

So here's a variety of comprehensive plan policies.

I did a little bit more of an extensive analysis of all of these in the staff report, so I won't go through all the details, but um the proposal could uh provide a mix of housing types to encourage a variety of housing, provide activity centers for residents, uh, ensure new development meets comprehensive plan vision priorities.

It would encourage uh in fill.

It does promote or could potentially promote mixed-use neighborhoods and diverse housing opportunities near employment.

Uh could cultivate a mix of local, unique and creative businesses, uh, expand use of the airport community resource, um, locate higher density housing and mixed-use development areas that are served or potentially served by transit.

So the next couple of slides will go over the applicant seminal and their proposal.

They're proposing to zone the northwest corner.

It's 15.9 acres to airport or AP zone.

That would allow airport related uses and commercial, potentially like restaurants, offices, or general retail.

And then the other two sites.

One is 26.1 acres and the other one along Highway 7 is 18.4 acres, are both proposed to be rezoned to community mixed use or CMU.

So with CMU zoned properties up to 20 acres, they must have at least two principal uses.

Over 20 acres in size, would require to have three principal uses.

And in either scenario, one of those uses must be residential for that zoning.

And then you have to have a minimum of 25% 25% of the gross floor area divided amongst the different uses so that you do get an actual mixed use of uses in the zone.

This is the applicant's basic sort of concept plan of how they would envision this to look with the airport uses and the community mixed use.

Both of these they've listed as plot notes.

I think we'd noted that they're not enforceable per se, but they do represent commitments that the applicant has represented to town council and the community.

So looking at the approval criteria, there are several that you look at for the rezonings.

Find that the pros rezoning can support the proposed development intensity in a way that could promote the public health safety and welfare.

It's consistent with the town's comprehensive plan, encourages several key goals.

All utilities are available to the subject site while maintaining acceptable levels of service.

No specific adverse impacts were identified or are expected.

Future developments will be evaluated on their ability to provide adequate levels of service as final planning and site planning comes in for specific development applications.

Negative impacts are not anticipated to the environment.

Detailed studies are required with future applications.

We find this development will be compatible with the character of surrounding land uses.

Shall provide further evidence they'll fit within the surrounding uses, allowing a broader range of uses should promote development along Highway 7 while advancing town goals of economic diversification and housing opportunities.

So the staff find that the application complies with the approval criteria and recommends the town council approve the ordinance rezoning the property to airport and community mixed use, and then also approve the resolution for the minor subdivision creating the three tracks.

I didn't talk a whole lot about the minor subdivision.

I mean, it is creating the three tracks.

The tracks are consistent with the zoning designations that I showed on that previous slide where it showed the acreages of each of them.

And so that's really all that the minor subdivision does is just make sure that the proposed zonings are all contained on one lot that are not split by lines.

And again, tracks can't be developed until they're further subdivided through a plat.

So in terms of neighborhood meetings, the applicant held two meetings, one on September 30th and another on October 30th, excuse me.

So the first one didn't fully meet the notice requirements.

That's why they held the second one so that it met the proper posting, noticing, etc.

Per RUDC.

But they did have two of them.

Concerns at the meetings include increasing air traffic, protecting the taxiway easements, potential commercial next to homes, and stepping back and massing of possible structures.

The planning commission held a hearing on the rezoning application on April 1st.

They didn't consider the minor subdivision because those typically would go on the consent agenda, but because it was tagging along with the rezoning, we added on for town council.

The commission, the planning commission heard comments, they asked questions and deliberated before voting unanimously to recommend approval to town council, the rezoning.

Some of the topics included consistency with the comp plan, compatibility with existing development, possible traffic, possible uses and impacts to the airport.

So this slide just shows all the notices were properly met.

I mentioned the neighborhood meetings and the planning commission.

It was also published and posted with letters sent to adjacent property owners.

That concludes the staff presentation tonight.

The applicant has a presentation also prepared that I'll pull up.

And we're happy to answer any questions when you're ready.

All right.

And I think we'll uh go to the uh second presentation and then we'll go to public comment and then we'll bring it back.

And the public hearing is open if I forgot to say that earlier.

Okay.

All right.

Uh good evening, counsel.

My name is Heidi Majarick.

I'm with Gage Land Development.

I'm a owner's rep for BC Land.

Uh, thank you so much for this opportunity to present to you tonight.

Um, and would also just like to thank staff for their hard work on this application.

I'd like to take a moment to introduce our team.

I'm here with Becca Bailey with Norris Design.

And then we also have Kevin Lovelace with LJA, the uh engineer of record, and we have Wyatt Carlson, who is the landowner.

And the entire team will be available for your questions.

There we go.

Okay.

So as Chris reviewed with you, we are asking for your approval on a rezoning with uh supporting minor subdivision, um, which will bring the site into compliance with the comp plan.

Um, the zone districts before you tonight were selected in collaboration with town staff in consideration of the town's stated goals in the complan, as well as the airport work plan to support economic development at the airport.

These districts were also selected in consideration of the needs and desires of the FAA to have greater setbacks from the airport to residential development.

The FAA has stated their discomfort with the current zoning on the property.

So I am going to turn it over to Becca and ask her to talk a little bit further about these zone districts and the complan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Heidi.

Uh, as Heidi mentioned, my name is Becca Bailey.

I'm with Norris Design and uh working on the entitlements with this project.

So as Heidi and Chris uh both mentioned, we are here to talk about the um compliance with the comprehensive plan.

So on the left, you see the previous comprehensive plan from 2015, which dictates the larger portion of the site as MU or mixed use, and then the lower right portion of the site is community commercial.

And then as you look at the right, um, you see kind of the same breakdown of shapes, and it is now, as Chris mentioned, employment and commercial corridor.

So again, as Chris had mentioned, the site is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan.

Uh, the low density residential does not um fit in with the employment that is proposed with the comp plan.

And as Heidi and Chris also mentioned, the CMU zoning was chosen because there is not a straight zone category that currently correlates to the 2024 comprehensive plan of employment.

Uh so we worked along with staff to land on the CMU zoning that you see before you tonight.

And also just to mention that existing zoning does not comply with the town because of the low density residential.

So looking at the proposed zoning and how it does comply with the town comp plan.

Um, the proposed zoning meets the intent of the previous and existing comprehensive plans by using employment and CMU, they have similar designations within the uh municipal code.

The revised zoning will support a more diverse mix of uses that will strengthen the town of Erie's housing, retail, and employment base.

The commercial corridor also will likely be placed along the highway, or excuse me, any commercial uses will likely be placed along the commercial corridor along the existing highway seven with residential buildings as you move more north.

The airport zoning has been made smaller to accommodate concerns we heard at neighborhood meetings while still maintaining the FAA's requirements set forth in their runway protection zones.

And then this land use map, you looked at it with Chris's presentation as well.

It just better aligns to show where the airport use and the community mixed use will be proposed based on the subdivision plat.

And also just to provide a use of a transition of uses from the active runway to the west of the site, uh commercial to the east of the site, residential to the north, and highway immediately to the south.

So this slide details our application and review process.

As Chris mentioned, we did conduct two community meetings.

And from those community meetings, we created a stakeholder list.

Folks were kind enough to give us their emails.

And out of that, we sent four email updates to our stakeholder list that included links to our resubmittals, summaries of what changed in each of our submittals, as well as notification of our hearings.

And additionally, Becca and I did our best to make ourselves available to the community and get engaged with them via email and phone calls.

Um the residents in the air park as well as Anthem residents in Broomfield and the city and county of Broomfield.

So from Anthem and from the city and county of Broomfield, we heard concerns about that this rezoning could increase air traffic.

And additionally from the city and county of Broomfield, we got a late comment from them that expressed their desires to limit the allowable uses in the town of Erie's AP zone district.

From the air park residents, you know, we heard the concerns about protecting the existing taxiway easement that's on the northern portion of the property.

It's a 40-foot-wide easement that allows the through-the-fence access to those aviators that live in the air park.

We also heard concerns about having loud commercial or industrial uses up against those residential properties, as well as desire for quality architecture and appropriate massing adjacent to residential proper the lower density residential properties.

And what Mead and Hunt found was that the proposed rezoning to AP is not expected to increase air traffic or change the airport operations.

And oh, thank you.

And he indicated that this rezoning, which is on the east side of the airport, would not change the way aircraft operate or aircraft traffic patterns, and that there would be no change to the approach and departure corridors.

It's important to note that the airport operations occur with the exception of the aviators in the air park on the east or the west side of the airport.

So the airport operations are occurring on the west side, not the east side, with the exception of the aviators in the air park who access from the east side.

Originally, the AP zoning came all the way down to Colorado Highway 7.

Um because we are not requesting specialized zoning this evening.

We are requesting straight zone codes.

Broomfield's desire to limit the allowed uses in the town of Erie's AP zone district would be more appropriately addressed at the at the site plan level in future applications.

Thank you.

She's ahead of me.

She knows I'm going to forget it again.

So we wanted to share this map with you.

It shows the FAA part 77 restrictions on the site.

The dotted line is the runway protection zone, and the color bands are the height restrictions that the FAA um enacts on any kind of development that's adjacent to the airport.

So you can see that what this application does is it gets almost all of those restrictions into the AP zoning.

And that was a previous concern of the FAA with previous applications on the site is that that residential was coming right up to those lines.

And so this provides um some more buffer from that airport that we heard was concerned to the FAA.

And then going back to the concerns that we heard from the residents of the airpark and the plat notes that Chris talked about.

Again, we heard concerns about protecting the taxiway easement on the property, a desire to you know limit loud commercial or industrial uses adjacent to homes and assuring that quality architecture and the right kind of massing.

So these are all valid concerns by the community that when an application comes in for a site plan, we'll need to sit down with the neighborhood with site plans and really go through these.

However, staff worked with us to place some notes on the minor subdivision plat that will help guide future site applicants and to help document the commitments we made to the community.

More specifically, these notes restrict height adjacent to existing residential properties, as well as creating um setbacks to protect um the um community from loud community uses.

We committed to a hundred um foot setback of commercial uses.

But based on what we heard at Planning Commission, we're gonna go ahead and commit to a hundred foot setback of all uses off that north property line.

We heard more concerns about safety with the aircraft that are using the taxiway easement.

So out of that, we said, okay, let's just rather than a hundred foot setback of commercial uses, let's just set back all uses a hundred feet off of the entire north property line.

This slide shows you where that taxiway easement is.

It's in yellow.

It doesn't extend the entire north property line.

It stops at the end of that yellow, but we're gonna go ahead and commit a hundred-foot setback of all uses along that entire north property line.

Um, but just keep in mind there would still need to be utilities, drainage um located in that that uh that 100 feet.

So um so I'm I'm just gonna end with you know the rezoning approval criteria that staff has set has um found that we meet.

Um and our reminder that a next step for this site would be a site, uh a preliminary plat, a final plat site plan that Chris had had in his slides.

So this site would need to go back through more community engagement um prior to coming back to you for any of those applications.

Um and it'll go through the same rigorous review process with staff that you saw on our slide.

Um and I am going to ask you this evening um for your approval on our rezoning request and our minor subdivision.

Our team is here to answer your questions.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you.

Go look to our uh town clerk to see um well, I know people have signed up, so we'll start with whoever is signed up.

So the first person is Johan Morris, and he is online.

Mr.

Morris, you should be able to unmute and speak.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Yes.

Uh hi, this is Johan Morris.

I'm uh resident of Erie Air Park on the HOA, uh though not speaking for the SS for the HOA necessarily.

Um I've I'm I'm I'm beyond uh concerned that there is no uh acknowledgement that the employment swath that was somehow placed over the Sierra Vista property was done so I think erroneously.

And then that fact is now being used.

The fact that there's uh an employment zone there, then now all of it has to change to a non-low density residential place.

Um when all of this started.

The applicant was completely unaware of the easement.

The FAA doesn't care about an easement on the south side.

Um the airport doesn't care about the easement, they have nothing to say about it.

And and so only the only people that are concerned about it are the residents.

And it's not a residential area that people keep saying, it's a rural residential area.

So even a meeting with uh the mayor, uh one of the one of our representatives and some other neighbors, um, it seemed apparent that a Erie Air Park buffer zone should be created prior to any rezoning.

Um I just looked up even the the county uh in Adams County, they have a hundred-foot setback from aircraft uh easements of any kind.

So that would be a hundred and forty feet.

I think a hundred feet is um way too small.

40 feet is for the aircraft like wings, but no pilot is just gonna try to go down a narrow path of 40 feet.

They need maneuvering room.

So again, it's uh the 40 feet is uh or excuse me, the hundred feet is is pretty um pretty minimal from our perspective, considering it's rural residential on the north side and agricultural on the east side.

So for staff to say that uh that it's okay and it looks good and it uh it seems to fit is preposterous.

I think uh I've sent everybody uh further uh rationale um on council.

20 seconds you hope you take it into account.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um next is Tim.

I can't say your last name.

Uh good evening, Mayor, Council members.

Uh my name is Tim Dernick.

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

Uh I'd like to start by saying I'm not categorically opposed to uh to the development of the site.

The the property is sort of the last lonely island of undeveloped land there along that corridor, so the uh exponential uh rate of uh change to Erie is sort of made that a foregone conclusion.

Um I would like to say that I'm sympathetic to the applicants in regard to this parcel.

It's a difficult piece of land to zone.

Uh needs to serve a bunch of different uh uses, a bunch of different masters.

Uh highway seven to the south, business commercial and retail, uh, airport to the west and the anticipated concerns of any FAA involvement.

And then across the full northern border of the property, we have the rural residential airpark.

And so the the current proposal sort of bifurcates the the parcel into the eastern and western zones.

The AP zone on the west, CMU on the east.

Uh this division uh handles the business and the retail interest of the development along highway seven.

It compensates for future objections for the FAA on the airport side and broomfield.

Um what it does not do is address the issues of the air park to the north.

The proposal pushes the industrial aspects of the AP zoning right up to the rural airpark.

It pushes the business, retail, and medium to high density residential aspects of the CMU right up against the rural airpark.

This isn't completely accurate as the applicant has stipulated a minimum 100 100 foot setback from the north or from the airport property lines.

And that's a considerable amount of land from the owner to offer up.

And I appreciate that they've made the offer.

It shows good faith and also demonstrates that everyone recognizes that this buffer uh or transition issue is an important one.

However, of the portion of the northern border, and it's been pointed out, there's a uh 40-foot-wide aircraft easement.

That 40-foot easement would exist within that 100-foot setback, uh, which means that future development businesses or worse multifamily homes would be 60 feet from taxing aircraft.

Uh for comparison, uh, this room is about 50 feet.

So all of this said, it seems that a more natural division than east to west would be north to south as we transition towards uh highway seven.

The south portion serving the CMU, perfectly perfectly legitimate.

The businesses and retail interests that border the highway.

Uh perhaps some of the medium to high density housing towards the center of the parcel, enough AP on the western side to alleviate the FAA concerns, but the section to the north, the section that borders the rural airpark, at minimum should retain its low density residential zoning or some similar compatible classification.

Uh preserving this transition area would significantly reduce potential conflicts and better protect the character and the safety of the rural residential area.

Thank you for your time.

All right.

Thank you.

Next we have John Baird.

John Yard Beyard.

Hi.

Welcome.

Uh my name is John Biard.

My wife Pamela and I are homeowners in Erie Air Park, the rural residential neighborhood due north of the 60 area, 60-acre property.

We're here tonight to object to this resolution to the rezoning from low density residential and community commercial to community mixed use and airport.

Primarily the objection is to the community mixed use.

So when we purchased our homes, we did so based on the town's existing master plan and the Erie Town Center plan development, which promised us a predictable low-intensity transition between our quiet backyards and the commercial activity on Highway 7.

This rezoning effectively dissolves that promise.

The current low density residential and community commercial zoning enables gradual building density next to our rural residential neighborhood.

This current zoning means less traffic penetration farther north on Bonanza and reduces the chances that businesses with any associated noise and lighting will border the airpark.

By removing the low density residential designation and replacing it with community mixed use, the town is moving the boundary of commercial activity right up to the edge of our Erie Air Park neighborhood.

Currently, this northern strip of the property is zoned low density residential.

The zoning ensures that our neighbors to the south in Sierra Vista that eventually move in would be single family homes with yards, low traffic and 35-foot height cap, meaning a gradual transition to our rural residential neighborhood to the north.

This proposed rezoning to community mixed use is a radical departure.

By removing the plan development and the low density residential designation, you're removing this safety rail that protects our property lines.

Community mixed use is significantly less restrictive, giving developers the green light to build far more invasive structures such as three-story apartments or integrated commercial storefronts directly against our residential properties.

So under the current low density residential and community commercial rules, business activity would be clustered south toward Highway 7.

With the proposed community mixed use change, that intensity is allowed further north, which would mean tall multi-use buildings looming over our private spaces, and possibly higher density and increased activity.

This would lead to more traffic, overflow parking on our residential streets and increased noise in what is currently a quiet residential zone.

Concluding flexibility for a developer should not come at the expense of the area airpark residents.

While we understand the need for economic growth at what I think is called Erie Four Corners, community mixed use designation is the wrong solution for this northern boundary.

It's too broad, too invasive, and violates the buffer we were promised.

We asked the commission to deny this resolution and enforce the agreed-on height step-down transition near the airpark to protect the residents to the north.

Thanks.

All right.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patty Anderson.

Good evening, Mayor and Council members.

My name's Patty Anderson.

I live at 3025 Cherokee Court in Erie.

My property is directly north, adjacent to the proposed rezoning property.

I've lived there for 18 years.

I'm familiar with the history of the property that's being discussed, including prior owners of the property from the Pratt's first Sierra Vista plan back in 2015.

And the Creststone Oil and Gas.

And now the rezoning proposal.

There's an active aircraft easement and helicopter flight pattern directly north to the property.

There needs to be a buffer of at least 140 feet, possibly 200 feet.

That could include fence and perhaps a berm landscaped with trees or a buffer.

Now we're in an area of possibly having 40 foot structures.

The sunsets and mountain views off bonanza and surrounding areas are stunning.

Why would we take that away?

Light and noise pollution.

Currently, the lights from Maverick and the Erie storage building shine directly in my windows, which I have no control over.

I'm concerned there will be more light and noise pollution.

Compatibility of neighboring residential property.

Having industrial buildings and possibly four story apartments next to a rural housing community with well over million dollar homes may devalue the existing properties.

Commercial zoning may be appropriate directly off Highway 7, but is not adjacent to low density residential zoning.

Thank you for listening to my concerns.

All right, thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Biard.

Hi, I'm Pamela Biard.

I live at 275 Sky Lane Drive.

I've lived there for 26 years.

I'm here to urge you tonight to not vote on the proposed zoning change and the 63 acre parcel.

I've watched this corridor transform for over a quarter century, and I'm here to speak to the physical hazards and the irreversible safety impacts.

This change would create for myself and my neighbors.

This property is not flat.

It is a double double slope blind spot.

It has several double slopes falling both north and south and east to west.

As someone who drives Bonanza Road for 26 years, I can tell you the incline is rising from Highway 7 is a notorious danger.

It creates significant blind spots for drivers cresting the hill by rezoning for high intensity and commercial use.

You're inviting high volume traffic and heavy trucks and navigate a steep vertical curve, and it's not engineered for this capacity.

It was always a two-lane small road, and now it's taking high traffic.

It's a recipe for catastrophic collisions.

On the north side of this property is a critical safety buffer directly to the north boundary of the residential taxiway and a halipad.

These are active aviation infrastructures, placing high density buildings on a slope that rises towards the homes and creates a vertical wall of encroachment.

These low density single family homes have anchored this property for 50 years.

They're actually rural, what I meant to say is rural residential homes.

They've been there for 50 years.

This is actually the first housing development outside of downtown Erie.

We purchased this property with a quiet lifestyle, not to have our taxiways and pathways crowded by commercial rooftops and light poles and looking at HVAC units.

Over the last two decades, I've seen our stars disappear.

The light spill from Highway 7 alone is already a challenge.

Adding 63 acquires glow directly adjacent to the runway, helipad, and direct our direct safety hazards.

Furthermore, the noise from Highway 7 is already intense in our neighborhood.

The occasional plane is part of our life.

I knew that when we moved here.

I am not a pilot, nor is my husband.

It's incompatible.

You cannot mitigate away a slope this steep in two different directions, nor can you ignore the proximity to the helipad and active taxiway.

This zoning change ignores the history of this land and the safety of the citizens who have lived here for decades.

This is incompatible use of the land.

The safety of our community, the drivers, and the rights of our long-term residents are here.

All right.

Thank you.

And the last person who signed up is Brian Bednar.

Good evening.

I'm Brian Bednar, 280 Skyline Drive.

I'm going to summarize the three main points in the memo that I sent for the record.

I have three main points to cover.

First, the rezoning of this land as mixed use is moving the town from a function focused zoning of residential to yet to be determined mixed bag of 40 property uses that will be permitted by right.

These uses literally cover cradle to grave from child care centers to nursing homes to crematories with many in between, like nightclubs and taverns.

So rather than the town approving a zoning that's appropriately fits our neighborhood, it gives developers freedom to choose from those 40 different functions to build next to our community.

Basically, it says that don't screw up what's already there.

And in addition to that, make sure that the appearance and function is compatible and integrated with the surrounding communities.

My third concern is the most critical, though.

Roughly one quarter of traffic fatalities and half of traffic injuries occur at intersections.

The impact analysis submit in this middle calls for a 460-foot intersection site distance for the main entrance off of Bonanza.

All we're getting is 390 feet.

And because it is likely to generate a lot of heavy truck traffic, this uh really needs to be 592 feet.

And we're only getting the 390.

Simply put, because of the hill on Bonanza Drive, even the rare driver going the speed limit, not have enough time to avoid hitting traffic, exiting this development as it's turning on to Bonanza.

Even putting a traffic circle at that intersection will not meet traffic engineering standards.

Additionally, because the required concept plan was not submitted for this project, the traffic numbers are a guess.

And even according to planner Chris LaRue, are likely to increase beyond what is in the study.

And even these inaccurate low traffic counts.

The analysis shows that afternoon traffic jams at the primary will occur at the primary entrance.

That plus the intersection being too close for the crest of the hill is a deadly combination.

So please don't placate us by saying that there'll be future chances to comment on this.

First, the town guidance requires a concept plan.

There is none.

The town's UDC approval criteria.

If you can't name any compatible function from the 40 permitted by right uses other than open space, then you should send this application back.

And if you don't want to be responsible for the potentially deadly intersection, then send this back for more planning.

Please send it back.

All right.

Thank you.

I don't have anyone else signed up.

Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak to us tonight on this topic?

Come on up.

Thank you, Mayor Moore.

My name is Mike Eggleston.

I live at 3020 Cherokee Court, Erie.

Um I only really have one thing, and this the whole deal is.

What was just discussed is how many different things can be there.

And as the town already knows, we've had this in the past where things have been approved, and then it comes in other than what town council thought it was going to be because it was a council before you that approved this, and it ends up into possible lawsuit, or we have to give in.

This is such a broad application that can be put here without knowing what's going on and what's going to went in.

And I understand as a developer, he's not going to be able to name exactly what it is.

But I think if we narrowed it down to a section of what it could be, it could be then more reasonably looked at and discussed as to how we can do this.

Right now, we have no idea.

I mean, that opportunity, like you said, 60 some categories that this could be.

And who knows what it's going to be.

And my house is one house off of where it backs up to.

And like we've said, it's too bad.

We're a growing city.

We understand it, light pollution is terrible.

I mean, we have no sidewalks, we have no street lights.

We love it there.

And we'd hate to see it go away.

And the other thing is, like they've been talking from where we're at, my house is almost the tallest point of the air park, except for this section.

It's probably another 50 to 60 feet higher than the roof of my house.

So now you add 40 feet on top of that, and it just destroys what's there, and it's not going to be a good use.

That's really all I have to say.

Thank you very much.

All right.

Thank you.

Would anybody else like to address this tonight?

Okay, then with that, I'm gonna close.

Um actually I'm gonna bring uh questions back from council to staff of the applicant, and then I will close the public uh hearing at that point.

Any uh anybody want to go first?

Okay, council member Mortalero.

All right.

Um so first I wanna understand the easements uh better.

I know that uh applicant is uh agreeing to do a hundred foot easement on the uh on the north side, or actually around the whole um on the whole north side, right?

Or so a hundred foot buffer from the north property line, the entire north property line south.

So part of that can I go back to the picture, Chris?

Yes, hang on.

Oh, you let me just put that picture back up for you if that's okay.

Yeah, thanks.

Okay, go ahead.

Great.

Okay.

So you can see the entire north property line there.

The taxiway easement, which is 40 feet, that's where um the community has right to up operate their aircraft, right?

Is that 40 feet on that taxiway?

Okay.

The yellow section is the yellow section is the 40 feet.

Operate aircraft and that is yeah, that is a recorded easement.

Okay.

Okay.

And so what we're committing to tonight is a hundred-foot buffer from that north property line south.

So where you see the yellow easement from that property line, the easement's 40 feet, and then it would be another 60 feet to the south of that.

To the east side of the site where there is no taxiway easement, that would just be the full 100-foot buffer.

So what you could expect to see in that area is utilities, drainage.

Um, because this is just a rezoning, there are no identified uses, there is no site plan, that would be a future application.

That's when we would need to sit down with the community, talk about berms, fences that you heard, um, those types of things in that space.

Uh thank you.

Uh next was uh the traffic.

Um concerns about the grading of the of the area.

And I see there's uh two entrances to the you know, potentially two entrances or access points to the property or to the site uh on bonanza.

Uh is there a reason for that?

And could that be limited to one uh access point?

Yes, I'll I'll answer that in a second.

I just I wanted to if you don't mind touch the easement question again just to make sure you're that's clear.

They're proposing a buffer, not an easement.

So there are a couple of options there.

You could expect to see that easement potentially on a future final plat.

Another option would be potentially to condition it to be placed on the plat this plat, the minor subdivision, um, prior to recordation.

So I want to make sure you understand that.

Okay.

Yep.

Thank you.

Okay.

And then let's see.

Transportation, so you're talking about uh access.

So you're talking about uh access.

So obviously anything that's proposed is preliminary at this point.

Uh there's an opportunity that they may be able to receive an access to highway seven.

That would more than likely be limited to right in right out.

You wouldn't get probably a signal or a left turn out of there.

Um it's true that the traffic analysis that they provided is is high level and it's based on potential uses in the zone.

Um in terms of limiting accesses, we can't necessarily do that at a rezoning stage.

Uh we would definitely want to investigate those accesses with future plating site planning uh as it comes in.

Yeah, I would say we definitely want to would want to look at that in any future planning uh on on the site, and the fact that um the more access points, you know, as traffic does increase uh it could create you know other situations.

Um and backups and whatnot.

And and maybe you could pick a position that would be safer if you only had one access point.

Yes, thank thank you for that comment.

We definitely would want to look at that.

I think it would probably uh bear stating that accesses should line up across from each other, you know, with commons drive and or driveway accesses.

You don't typically want those to be offset, especially if there's a lot of traffic going in those areas.

I think that's an important point to make.

Um in the traffic study, does it talk about the grade of bananza and in the crest of the hill, et cetera?

Um I may look to the applicant and have them if they're a traffic engineer is here to answer that question.

I I'm not an engineer, so I'm not necessarily prepared to answer that at the moment.

But councilman, I'd like to take a whack at that and see if I answer your question, and then if we need Kevin to chime in, we can.

Um this is a preliminary TIA.

Um the town has a process by which we complete a base assumptions form.

Um because there is no site plan, because there are no identified uses, we make assumptions um for counts that we put into that base assumption form, staff and staff's consultants review it.

Um, we get that approved, and then we move forward based upon that.

As folks have pointed out, there is a you know, substantial grade on Bonanza.

So when a future use is identified and a site plan is done, it would do a final, it would do a final TIA, which at that point in time it takes in consideration um the grades, as um Chris pointed out, Commons Drive across the way.

Um, all of those kinds of dynamics to determine where exactly um an access point could be.

And so that need that will come at a at a next level application of where that would really be reviewed fully by consultant teams as well as the town's staff and the town's consultant teams.

Okay, thanks.

I think that's uh important thing to keep in mind as if this moves forward.

Thank you.

Um, and then I did notice in the history that in twenty twelve this was zoned as is high density residential and commercial corridor.

Is that accurate?

And then in 2014, it was changed to low residential and uh commercial.

Yes, that that's correct.

And I originally at the time with the annexation agreement uh that's still in place, it the density did allow up to 500 units of uh multifamily per that annexation agreement.

Yes, given the history of the site, it originally started as a higher-density development.

Um wasn't here for all these, but I I I think probably there was some pushback in terms of the development, maybe that density uh next to the airport.

Um then they decided to lower the density and rezone as you indicated on the history.

Um not sure if that answered exactly what you're asking.

I could add more if you need more.

Uh no, I was gonna just wanted to confirm the history that I'd gone through and whatnot.

So thanks.

Okay.

I'm good.

Thank you.

Okay, council bear.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um we're not talking about specifics for road design.

I do have concerns about bonanza.

I think that there's some really very valid with that road and concerns with traffic.

But more questions about zoning.

What's the difference between commercial corridor and CMU zoning?

Like what are some examples of what would go in commercial corridor commercial?

I think the primary difference is that community mixed use, the key term in there is mixed use.

It requires a certain number of principal uses, one of which has to be resident.

Chris, would you mind using the microphone?

I'm sorry.

I can sorry about that.

I'll start over.

The CMU district differs from the uh corridor commercial in that it's a mixed use district.

It requires certain numbers or principal uses.

I think it was 20 or less, you have to have two.

If it's greater than that, you have to have three, one of which has to be residential.

That's probably the primary difference.

Um then the community commercial, of course, is strictly a commercial zone.

Um I think that's probably the primary difference.

I could look at the use tables.

I mean, there you can have some similar uses in terms of the commercial that's permitted in both.

So under CMU is low density residential one of the um eligible uses.

No Chris, did you want to answer that?

Could you repeat that?

You asked if single family low density residential.

Is that one of the uses?

Um let me just use table to make sure I answer it correctly.

Uh no, single family uh detached is not permitted in the CMU zone.

It's primarily supposed to be uh higher density, um, medium type density residential.

Um some of the goals of the comp plan talk about putting um more options for housing near community or commercial corridors.

Um I could tell you really quick.

I'm sorry, I keep fading away from the microphone.

Um things that are allowed in CMU in terms of red residential include live work.

It does prohibit duplex, but it allows multi-family.

Um those are the residential uses.

So it is more of your higher density type residential.

Okay.

Um let's see.

Some of my questions were asked, so I don't want to repeat.

Um the airport zoning, one of the use by rights that's listed in the chart that was provided in the packet is um helipad or heliport.

That would does that mean that if uh that use came to council, like they wanted to locate there that we would council would be required to approve that or not even maybe it wouldn't even come to council because it's use by right.

Well, um, I imagine it would probably require a site plan uh to go with it.

I it depends on the extent, but yes, if it's a permitted use, um that could potentially be allowed there.

Uh any requirements that may um come into play, plating would be needed, probably to create a lot for it.

Site plan likely would be required for it.

Um so there would be review opportunities from that front.

So you could make comments based on maybe lot configuration or technical failing to meet technical requirements of plating, or maybe there's some site planning issues that you could comment on with respect to design or layout or look or looking to see how referral agencies may comment on a site plan for that kind of thing.

Okay.

But it would be it would be a use by right, pretty much.

Yes, it would.

So my other question is um, forgive my ignorance.

Um could you know, uh hearing commenters this evening talk about um respecting kind of the rural residential zoning on the north end.

Is there possibility to zone this so that we respect that zoning and sort of step down it towards commercial use?

Is there a possibility to change the zoning request?

Yes.

Um we would have to probably delay action.

The applicant would have to be willing to apply for the zoning.

We'd have to kind of do the process over again from that perspective.

If I could just speak to that quickly.

Then in residential detached for sale, you'll typically see lot ups in the range of 90 feet deep to 120 feet deep.

So that 100 foot buffer is in that range of what you would see in a single family detached lot.

Now, granted, for a part of it, 40 40 feet of it is a taxiway easement.

So I just wanted to put that forward, that that 100-foot buffer is rather substantial.

When you start to think about transitioning uses, there's a lot of opportunity to look at how you design that with what a speaker had talked about with berms and landscaping and fences.

So may I add a little to that if that's right?

Yeah, so I did want to answer your question on the rezoning, but just yes, if they're offering this buffer, that would be probably very helpful in terms of how much open area you have on the north.

There's other opportunities to look at that as well with with uh site planning and consistency.

There's a lot in the code about making sure there's good transitions from one usage to another.

So things you can look at, especially for taller buildings are step-ups, you know, you start low, maybe bring it higher as you go further into the site.

Those are all things we can require with site plan and design to create consistency with adjacent uses.

All right.

Questions uh from this side of the dais.

Council of Petra, no?

Okay.

Uh Mayor Pro Tem.

Sorry, who's up?

Sorry, I'm sorry.

I was not ready.

Last we knew that.

Do you guys have more?

Okay.

All right.

I guess I have I have questions.

If uh do you want to go for because I'm still yeah, I'm still gathering my own.

Sorry, I thought uh you'd indicated you're ready.

My fault there.

So the zoning and use by right is a concern uh to me.

I think we saw this uh at our last meeting where we did not approve something, another land use.

Um mentioned a uh uh cremation facility, crematorium.

Um a helicopter pad, right?

This land will get developed.

I have no doubt about that.

It's too strategic, and I think there is um a great need for Erie for retail and being able to generate more tax revenue off of highway seven.

Um talk to me a little bit about this step down.

That's an important concept.

It came up uh back at uh Arapaho and 1111th, where you have low density and then you're putting right next to it high density.

This is rural density, if I understand it correctly, that could be right up against apartment complexes if I'm understanding this correctly.

So um I think part of our comp plan though is to have transition.

Um, how is that being addressed if we were to approve this tonight?

So it wouldn't be directly addressed with the rezoning request tonight, but obviously there's a lot we've talked about with respect to design and how that would look at site planning stage and how it's laid out with plating.

So that transition from that lesser intensity use down towards a higher intensity use, would need to be looked at very carefully in terms of how that may work.

I may have missed some of what you asked, but like step down isn't necessarily like lower density going to higher, it's maybe massing of buildings being smaller, set back further so that the taller type structures aren't directly adjacent to lower intensity uses, and it would create could create um just a better environment in terms of pedestrian level and how that looks, say from the rural side.

Um things you can do to design to try to mitigate or soften that or add buffers, a lot of things would be on the table for that.

So somebody had come up and had uh mentioned that maybe a better split of this land would be north-south as opposed to east-west.

I'm almost feeling like as I'm looking at the diagrams and let me just say I'm not a planner, right?

I I don't know all the intricacies, but I could see the big picture, and it almost feels like the airport use on the the west is fine, but it seems like there should be a transition where you have low density residential or medium density residential that transitions off of the large lot rural development, and then as you get closer to highway seven, that you bring in the mixed use and the the higher density and the uh the businesses.

And then as you get closer to highway seven, that you bring in the mixed use and the higher density and the uh the businesses.

Otherwise, I'm I'm really concerned that we will be sitting here with a zoning that we really have no say once we do that.

So I'll look to the applicant.

Yeah, and I think that there are great strategies that can be deployed with any type of residential development.

So, in addition to the hundred-foot buffer that we've committed to, um, and that there are pretty good great design guidelines in the UDC for architectural development and how uh multifamily buildings would um meet that site and how and any primary road or what's adjacent to it and how the buildings um may have to address that from a massing standpoint.

But one of the things that you'll see that's pretty common in any kind of multifamily development now is from a rental standpoint, you often see um a two or three-story townhome um building form used in addition to your three and four-story building forms.

So while there are no um there are no multifamily developers under contract on this land, um we had talked to a couple, and they felt that that would likely be a strategy that they would deploy.

So I think you can staff can look at those building forms, and the reality is a future application is gonna need to sit down with this community.

They have real valid concerns, they will need to sit down with the site plan and address those concerns, and there's ways you can do it with how you orient the building.

Maybe they're not oriented east-west, they're oriented north-south.

So you're looking at the end.

You can use those two and three-story townhome forms adjacent.

Remember, you can do a lot with that hundred-foot buffer that is the depth of a single family lot, with the exception of the 40-foot easement.

Even in 60 feet, you can look at Birmingham, you can look at um, you can look at the fencing, you can look at landscaping.

Um, as somebody said, I think you know, our site is higher, right?

And so that um those trees that you could put you could um plant up there are going to have a big impact.

So I think that the staff's thoughtful review in a site development plan, the code does afford um ability to address that type of transition in addition to that hundred foot buffer in a future application.

But just to be clear, no duplexes, no single family homes.

That's correct in this, which to me means the transition will be abrupt.

It feels like it will be abrupt from what I can visualize you know, as I'm thinking this through.

So that's a concern.

And I'm is the applicant willing to go back and look at single family, or have you guys looked at it and said, absolutely not?

I'm gonna have to look for go ahead.

Um, Chris, would doing something that's not going with the comp plan, would that require a comp plan amendment?

Um it depends on what we're proposing, but feasibly we would want to look at that if we're gonna drastically alter a land use.

If we're talking about a small area, we might we'd have to look, we might be able to make it work, but potentially.

Okay.

I mean, I think that's part of the the concern that you know, we were trying to be as respectful to the town of Eric Comp plan as we can, as well as the residents, and trying to still um you know give everyone a little bit.

We can't make everyone happy all the time.

We understand that, but I think that's kind of the the path for it that we chose.

Yep.

Okay, I understand.

And I also um highly concerned about the the transition from arguably uh development that's been there a long time, right?

Old town is probably the only development that's been there longer.

And having understanding that land, the this land should be developed.

We need it to be developed for our long-term financial health.

So I'm not against the development, but I do feel like we should be very thoughtful and to really understand how that step down uh or transition can be done without limiting ourselves tonight simply by saying, hey, it's zoned for this thing, and then we're tied in and actually tying our hands from being able to do that transition.

Um concern is I was writing things down is the road.

I don't understand all the the traffic um issues, but uh there were definitely I understand the hill, I've been on that hill many times, and as you're coming down towards highway seven, um, you know, if you don't have proper line of sight and you're flying over that hill, I could certainly see where that could be a problem.

So I would certainly want more information on that before um I'd be comfortable moving forward with what's been presented uh tonight.

That just in response, that would be difficult to do until there were uses identified where the you know exactly what traffic they're going to create.

The traffic report that we've done is the extent of what can be done at our rezoning.

So um that would be a future application where we'd be able to provide that level of detail.

Yep.

Or we restrict what could be there to then be the safety requirements as laid out by the model traffic code.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yep.

All right, let me go back to so uh let me go to the um the buffer zone uh a second, go back to that.

Um so on the I guess on the east side, I see there's a dirt road connecting to Banza, which I know is not part of the the avigation easement, but is is there an access easement into there that's still being kept, or is that going away?

Yes, there is uh an existing access easement that runs along the north part of the property and a little bit into some of the air park properties.

It's 40 feet in width total.

Okay.

Go ahead.

I think you're you're talking about from Bonanza where you could.

From Bonanza to the longer so yeah, from Bonanza on that aerial that you're looking at, that's not uh a public easing easement or access.

Okay, all right, yeah.

It looks like it's been used as you know, like a social.

Okay, yeah, I got you.

Yeah, I figured sorry, I misunderstood what you were asking.

Oh, yep, no worries.

Yeah, um and then um Chris going back to what you said, I'm just trying to understand this difference between the buffer and the easement.

So the because um I think you mentioned there there could be utilities there, so there's not a utility easement or in addition to that, or what what um I there I think there let me look at the plat just really quick to make sure I answer correctly.

Let's see.

Uh it looks like uh there are some easements up in the up in that area.

There's uh sewer easement, some water easements.

Uh conceptually, we wanted to make sure that some of these larger ones were included on the plat so that it could potentially facilitate future development.

We just wanted a kind of a broad look of how that was going to be laid out with the understanding that those could change with future needs plating on how that works.

Um but there are some utility easements um that are shown on the plat, at least on tract A, which is the AP side.

Uh looks like there's a water easement.

But through oh it's a long answer.

Yes, there are some utility easements on the north side that are shown on the plaque currently.

Okay.

Um and then going back to uh on the section that's being zoned for airport.

So uh with the with the uses on there, um I mean, potentially is there gonna be uh another avigation easement to for those users, potential users to access the airport.

I guess well, um see what the language says on here.

I mean, potentially if there's a new easement, well it would have to be negotiated.

Um exclusive.

A little bit more on these accesses.

Um, but they I mean they do say they're for access for the airport and runways.

I guess generally we'd want to take a look at that, but possibly.

Okay.

I I guess I'm trying to understand uh with uh the safety zones FAA has in from the end of the runway there, or like what that would potentially look like.

Yeah, if they if you had hangers there or something like that, what yeah or sorry it if they were if something like that were to be proposed, like uh a heliport or or something.

I mean, we'd need to get FAA to weigh in.

I well, I I'm not I don't think you uh honestly um I I don't think you could put a heliport there, but if there's uh uh just hangars, just normal aviation, what I assume they're gonna want through the fence and yeah, I would I would assume that too.

And I I think potentially those could be used for that.

We'd need to take a look at it just to double check.

Okay.

New easements may be necessary depending on where they wanted to access.

Um I think we'd need to look into that a little further before I confidently answer that one for you.

Okay, all right.

That's fine.

Um and if I could just add to that really quick.

Any use that would come into that site would also have to look at grades.

Yep.

Right, because while you have that current um taxiway easement, as you get to the south, there's some more grades.

So I think there'd be a pretty limited opportunities to access, you know, beyond that northern boundary.

So that would all have to be reviewed when uses are identified for that when an if.

Okay, thank you.

Um back to uh some understanding this um somebody mentioned from the presentation the the off bonanza uh potential uh entryway um in the site.

What uh I mean this is just a zoning, there's not a plat here, but I but potentially what uh what would be the minimum uh from the code the setback from the intersection that you could go in uh access into from off bonanza into the site.

I don't actually know the number I'll be call on John here.

Thank you, John.

Hi, I'm John Ferrzy, transportation mobility manager.

Um so just looking at the roadway classification coming off of highway seven, bonanza is a major collector in that segment between highway seven and sunsets, and then that classification, the roadway intersection distances for full movement is 400 feet for uh three-quarter movements, uh limited access, that would be about 300 feet.

So the nearest intersection would be roughly where commons is, but would be restricted.

Um so it would align with the street across from it's okay.

Thank you.

Yeah, okay.

Um then going so uh going back to the UDC, so on mixed mixed use or commercial or sorry, community mixed use.

So um uh language here, the CMU district is intended to include commercial institutional recreational and service facilities needed to support surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large, medium to higher des density housing should be incorporated within or located around the CM's uh CMU zone district and development should facilitate pedestrian connections between residential and non-residential land uses.

Um I guess in here and somebody mentioned uh I don't see language in here about uh you know right by use what would be special review use, but yeah, I I understand yeah, this mix of commercial with residential.

Um had that in other areas, but uh uh uh potentially how does staff work with the developer on that and determining what water uh what would be proper uses that you want to see here before you bring it to us if it's uh uh depending on if it's a right by use or special review use um so yes that's um it's kind of complicated.

I mean, in terms of any proposals that they're gonna present in the future, they or somebody else in terms of uses there um kind of generally the first step is a pre-application meeting, informal meeting.

We'd go over the process, talk about what the uses are.

Um obviously if there are uh uses that are incompatible, say near commercial, we'd want to see those located further south, closer to highway seven.

I mean, most commercial uses are gonna want to be along there if they're trying to get people to come in there.

Um so and then site plan reviews once it gets to that point.

Um potentially could be reviewed by planning commission if they're large enough.

Uh a multi-family development would go to planning commission.

Uh well, a single site plan might not, but I did mention in our staff report that we have this uh an option to do more of like a kind of overall site plan.

We did something similar with Highlands, I believe, on that commercial area where we'd want to see kind of a layout broadly, how it might look, connections, pedestrian connections.

That that's an option that we potentially could require um to try to vet the layout, potential uses.

Okay.

We couldn't say that a use is prohibited from locating in a place that it's zoned for, but you certainly have a lot of comments that we can make on compatibility, where it's located on the site, how it's designed, laid out.

Okay.

And then uh for the applicant um I know with the existing zoning words there at commercial decorator, and I realize that uh the uh community mixed use opens up more of those possibilities, but typically in uh I'm assuming a corner section is is probably gonna be where more commercial will naturally draw to.

So are you kind of expecting, even though we're we're kind of opening up that use more, but more of the commercial will I'm assuming will be towards that corner section?

Is it we're expecting in that more towards that intersection, but also along uh Colorado Highway 7?

And what we're really expecting it to be is more office type uses, okay um medical support, those types of things, um, because there is a lot of retail already to the east.

So that's what we think, but again, there are no contracts for any of this land.

Yep.

That's what we think will go there.

Okay.

Thank you.

That's all I have.

Okay.

I'm good.

Okay.

You're good.

Councillor Hobeck.

Thank you.

One one quick question tagging on to the idea of uh transition um from the neighborhood to to the commercial use uh thrown out there the idea of low density residential without any discussing any acreages or size of the property, it would probably be relatively small.

Um sounds like that would be a challenge to be financially viable I I'm sorry, Councilman Hopak.

I I just want to repeat your question back to you.

Are you asking me if uh uh for sale residential product along that north property line would be viable?

Is that what the size because of the size of the neighborhood that it would be?

Um I I don't know.

I I could I couldn't say that it it wouldn't be viable.

Um you know, we have a shortage of housing.

Um it's hard to say it wouldn't be viable.

It just starts to get to a point of the infrastructure that you have to build to support it that would make it get to a point where it would be you know extremely expensive housing.

So it's just that infrastructure.

Oh, okay.

Not that you can do it, but now I'm with you.

But yeah, it's just market and the infrastructure cost would be you'd have to have substantial.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so we could do a couple things here.

I can ask for a motion to approve, and we could see where that goes.

Um I could ask for a motion to continue if the applicant is willing to work on the zoning that doesn't lock us in to things that we may or may not work, but I'm not exactly sure how that would work.

Um so I think I'm looking to Mr.

LaRue to give us some guidance and potentially our attorney, depending on which way we go here.

So make sure I understand exactly what you're asking.

If you're looking to put restrictions on zoning, um, that's not something that I think we could do.

If you're asking them to potentially explore alternative zonings to place on the site, I guess that's probably something we could talk about, but it wouldn't restrict uses per se except by what's allowed in the zoning.

Um I think that's what you're asking.

Yeah, well, I'm looking at two criteria.

So I don't believe this meets uh two criteria.

And so I'd have a hard time voting yes on it myself.

Uh the first one is item E, which is the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject property.

And so I'm struggling with that one.

And then F is future uses on the subject property will be compatible in scale with uses on other properties in the vicinity of the subject property.

So I think about that and go, well, is a helicopter pad out there?

Um is that a uh a compatible in the use?

Or code it is, but is it with within the surrounding?

I don't know.

Um a cremation facility.

Is that compatible with the other property?

It doesn't feel like it is.

Um and so I'm struggling on ENF, and you know, as a as a judge, right?

We're all judges here.

If I'm struggling with ENF, it'd be hard for me to say at least my one vote be yes, because I don't think it meets the criteria of ENF, unless somebody can help me and why it does meet the criteria for ENF.

Would it be um Mayor Moore?

Would it be possible to hear um before you decide which motion and and we give you feedback on that?

Yes.

To hear comments from the rest of council.

Yes.

Because while we heard questions, not everybody asks questions, and I'd love to hear comments and then perhaps I could give you some feedback to your question that you asked about the question.

All right, so how about I just uh start on my left and we'll just loop all the way around.

So council member Barrett, you have the floor.

Thank you.

Um yeah, I I struggle with this for a number of reasons.

Um the compatibility of uses is sort of paramount.

Um I appreciate the idea of the step down and and considering that we have made um accommodations for other uses around, but not the rural residential um is concerning to me.

And I think that saying you know, that how a nightclub or crematorium is designed or laid out, I think that's little comfort for the community.

I also really have concerns about airport, the airport zoning.

I understand that um the FAA is not happy with the current um zoning, and so there needs to be consideration for airport operations, but that designation of the airport zoning and that um sort of upper north west corner um would allow for expansion when our community, including our air park residents, are saying that that raises concerns for them.

So I I feel like there is a better solution there.

I feel like that was kind of the low-hanging fruit, and we could figure something else out.

That said, um Colorado 7 is developing.

We we hope to see and plan to see best rapid transit um launching at the end of this year, I believe, along the corridor.

Um we want to expand so that there is a stop there at Bonanza Colorado 7.

Um and you know, it is a great corridor for commercial.

And um, I think that there is potential, and I think that you know, to Mayor Moore's point, this corridor will get developed.

Um, but this is the phase where we have the ability to inform what that development looks like with the through the zoning.

So um I would like to see zoning that respects the rural residential um, you know, abutting the northern edge while also marrying to the Colorado 7 corridor.

Um, and and it's it's a tough ask, but um, I have no no doubt that you're the person to figure that out.

So um, so that's kind of where I'm at.

Um and the safety issues and uh the easements that were raised, the bonanza is is a difficult one that's gonna have to be addressed no matter what goes in.

But um, yeah, I'm I'm leaning towards a no vote on that rezone.

Okay, council member Mortalero.

Yeah, thanks.

Um yeah, as Mayor Moore and uh Councilmember Bear said, we we fully expect that the uh you know the part across uh long seven is going to be developed.

I think everybody um who even lives in that area expects that to be developed.

Uh the challenge with zoning is that it opens up a lot of opportunities for what can be there.

Uh and we've shown that we can have multiple zonings on this property, uh, you know, was commercial corridor and and low density was commercial corridor and high density.

Um I I'd like to see you know something in a zoning that uh allowed the step down whether to medium or you know uh as you mentioned, low density may be a challenge from a from a cost perspective or uh, but is it possible to uh quantify the units per acre in on the northern part of this property?

I'd like you know I'd like to see.

Okay, council member hobeck.

Oh thank you.

Um I agree with the mayor.

I think this will eventually be developed, and I think this is you know um the type of development that the town needs along that corridor.

We need some higher density, we need some some commercial.

Um it's uh it's a um growing public transport um corridor.

Um don't know if anything will be built there if we insist on single family housing in addition to a buffer or as the buffer.

Um not particularly concerned about the airport part of it.

Um because of the lack of continuity to the west side of the runway.

Um it'd be a standalone operation of some sort, and I don't know what that might be.

Um so um yeah, I guess I'm leaning towards yes.

Okay.

Yeah, so uh we see commercial vacancy in Erie is like 2.5%, and it's very no, we need more commercial and businesses in Erie, and this is uh very good spot, and we need to capitalize on the traffic counts on Coletta 7.

I am for it, but I have some concerns, which is all the concerns that everybody mentioned traffic step down.

And uh there is a risk of once we zone it, maybe we are limiting the or expanding it to many possibilities.

I understand when the approval comes and or the platting comes again.

There is a discussion, but if you can limit possibilities of you know having these nightclubs or for example, which are disturbance for the community which already exists there.

So those are my uh negatives or positives for this one.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Um I do have the same concerns regarding the um the step down between the uh or step up from residential to um what could be multifamily units.

Um the buffer is also a concern.

I know it's 60 feet, but there's really no it does no one's really talked about a great barrier to keep people from using the taxiway for non-aircraft use.

I know there's been an issue in other parts of the airport where um vehicle vehicles have crossed active active taxiways and people have used active taxi taxiways to take a walk or walk their dogs.

Um so that really hasn't even if it's 60 feet, that's not that far for someone to wander over to a taxiway and use it as a footpath.

Um I also have the bonanza concerns.

Um I wish I mean I know it doesn't have to be done at this point, but I wish some sort of concept plan came along with this rezoning request.

Um it's really hard to visualize the um the vision of the developer without seeing something like that.

It's just being asked to change from you know one zoning to the other, which opens it up to a whole list of uses that may or may not be compatible with the surrounding um neighbors to the north or zoned or residential, and could have a significant impact on their property depending on what goes there.

So I I feel to for me to actually move this forward, I would want more information.

I would want some sort of sketch, some sort of concept to see what the vision is.

Thanks.

Uh thank you.

Um I I guess I'm a bit the same position as as council member hoback.

I I think according to the criteria for zoning standards.

I um I I think this meets most, if not all of those, but I I do understand the concerns that are brought up here tonight.

Um I I just want to mention one thing on the on the airport side of things uh uh and uh be good if staff could review this with uh uh uh Jason Heard and uh uh the airport staff that I I don't think you could have a helipad there.

I I think it's too close to the protection zone for the runway.

Um I was trying to uh use AI to look up stuff uh on that, but um I do know there are protection zones for that, plus the terrain there I think is is uh uh uh helicopter pads have to have you know certain amount of area that for touchdown um uh so I don't think that's gonna be a concern.

Um so I don't think that's gonna be a concern.

The only thing you could really have there is is hangars, and there is a uh need for for hangers right now.

Uh we get um uh for those of us on the the um liaison to the airport board and uh there's a mile-long list for um uh hangar availability.

Um but like I my concern with that is just that the we'd have to figure out if there are hangers in that area or if there's an applicant, because we don't there may not, we could zone it whatever one to there may not be an applicant there, but um you'd have to figure out a way to uh uh get some sort of of access onto the taxiway.

And the only way I just looking at it, visualizing it, the only way I could see is is to use somehow have that property get onto the existing taxiway.

So um but uh I I do think that that corner um we've obviously um seen a lot on the on the east side of Bonanza with some of the commercial development around there.

Um I I think it's natural to get commercial development out here, and I know that the commercial mixed use is uh kind of been a popular new thing, but um I I do understand the concerns, and so I I guess I would throw out that rather than I uh just reading the diasphere.

I don't think we have support for this to pass today, but I'm wondering if we could possibly uh have a motion to move this to a uh future date um for reconsideration.

Is that I I go to our town attorney to see what what are our possibilities here?

We certainly could continue it to a date certain, but it would need to be a date certain.

A date certain.

All right, so I want to go back to the application, right?

Would it be possible to just have a continuance?

Because we we hear your concerns.

I think there's ways we can work with you.

You know, if you can give staff some feedback on what uses you'd want to restrict and what step downs looked like to you, we can figure out together how to address those concerns, and so that just takes a little time um to work through that.

Yeah, so we won't allow changes to the application either.

Yeah, so counsel hobak is going where I was gonna go there, right?

If we continue it, it could come back, but then if there's no changes, then we can't it will end up in the same spot.

Um so how do we get to the place where they could consider a different zoning or a different way to move this forward?

Yeah, I mean there's I think there's a couple of options we could consider too in terms of how to do the application.

We we could potentially consider a planned development, which is a site-specific negotiated type of zoning that requires a lot of work and effort, which is fine.

Um, but I think we'd need some time if that's the choice they decide to make on that front.

You could guess you could do a strip of zoning up there, but there again, we'd need to renotice the project if they're gonna change the request in any way, renotice, publish all that stuff.

That takes time.

Uh I I don't feel like a couple of months would be sufficient.

Yep.

So I would what I'm hearing is I would rather you we don't do anything on this tonight unless we have to have a motion to not approve.

Um we don't want a denial.

You may consider withdrawing your application.

That that's true.

They could reapply for something new whenever they wanted.

I think we've given feedback on the concerns.

Um I mean, there could be a steady session down the road, but we also have a lot of other topics for dealing with right now, so that could be a a ways out.

So I think we would just want to withdraw tonight, then reapply anything more than that on the public record.

I think that would be sufficient.

All right.

I never close the public hearing.

I think I need to close the public hearing.

The public hearing is closed.

The applicant has withdrawn, and we will pick this up at uh some point in the future when the applicant comes back.

All right, thank you.

And appreciate all the work that's gone into it so far.

All right.

Um I'm gonna pause this just for a second as we're um transitioning out.

Um, Shannon Milliken was um one of the individuals who was helped us get uh our resolution done tonight.

Um we don't really have a place to have uh someone come up and talk about that.

But uh Shannon, I want to give you a couple minutes if you're willing to just come up.

This would be a good time.

And just name uh your location for the record.

All right.

Um good evening, Mr.

Mayor, council members, Erie residents, and community members.

My name is Shannon, and my pronouns are she, her.

My daughter attends the most diverse school in Erie with over 20 plus languages spoken in homes.

And so while I do not reside in Erie, I'm very invested as a community member who has been bringing forward the voices of families of color in Erie who have been navigating real and valid fears around public safety due to ICE activity more broadly.

Those fears don't come from events here in Erie, but they are still lived experiences, and for too long we weren't acknowledged because nothing had happened here.

But the fear was still shaping how families move through this community.

Tonight is was a really important moment for your town, and I want to acknowledge how we got here.

The truth is that there is division in Erie.

That division has created real rift, which is why when I come to testify, it was never to deepen that divide, but it was to bridge it.

To show how choices, words, and even silence shape the experiences of families who are already caring so much.

So over the last 12 weeks, we've seen that a different approach can lead to different outcomes.

I want to honor the families who trusted me with their stories and those who didn't share details but trusted me to carry forward their truth.

Some spoke openly, others simply said, yes, that's what we're feeling too.

And every conversation or moment of hesitation or courage pointed to the same thing that this proclamation mattered.

Their safety mattered and their belonging mattered.

And the trust they placed in me, even with limited details, is something that I hold with deep responsibility.

This process wasn't simple or immediate.

We invited you to the table, and it did take a time before there was willingness to lean in, and eventually you chose to engage in conversation.

From there, you asked for feedback, and then came the harder part acknowledging harm, recognizing that the way things have always been done does not work for residents in marginalized communities, and accepting accountability for the impact of words and actions.

Even with disagreement, you chose to not fully disengage.

Ultimately, you chose to do what was right for this community in your town, even when you didn't personally identify with the experiences that were being shared.

You are setting an example for what children will see for kids like my little girl who was here earlier, who are finally being shown that their experiences matter.

This moment doesn't erase the harm that has happened in the past, specifically to other communities in this town who have experienced exclusion, dismissal, or feeling of not being safe.

There's history here of residents feeling unseen or unsupported, and that context does matter.

It actually benefits everyone.

Now that there is a proclamation addressing the fears of those that are most impacted and clear communication from town leadership and the EREPD about what can and cannot be done.

It creates the conditions for people to organize, to share resources, and to build trainings that strengthen the broader community, including the many allies who make up a large part of this town.

What's happening tonight is a step forward.

And it's also a demonstration to ourselves and to each other that this community can move forward even when we don't always agree or share the same lived experiences.

When we choose to build bridges, we create conditions for connection and empathy.

And how we show up in those spaces shapes the outcomes we're able to create together.

What you have given families tonight is something their bodies can finally respond to.

You can finish.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

This proclamation doesn't erase the fear, but it does create conditions for that shift.

Predictability, visibility, and the sense for those in positions of power who are willing to stand with them.

Sorry, I'm a little emotional tonight.

When essential communication is available and the languages people actually speak at home, it tells them that they are part of this community, and it tells them that they are seen and it tells them that they matter.

Offering the live translation and translating the proc proclamation in languages spoken by residents in your town.

It's not optional, it is essential.

And your budget and cost cannot be the reason we deny people access to information that directly affects their safety and their sense of belonging.

This moment tonight shows what is possible when we choose to bridge instead of divide.

When we learn from each other, disagree without disengaging, and to do what is right for the people in this town, even when we don't personally identify with their experiences.

This is what leadership looks like.

And that's what I and the families who trusted me with their stories, want to thank you tonight.

So thank you very much.

We appreciate it.

All right.

Thank you.

Okay, we're gonna move on to council reports.

We still have an executive session uh tonight, so I'm gonna start with the mayor pro 10, and we'll just loop around um for any comments uh tonight.

Uh just one uh and I'm not sure what stuff uh wow, I'd uh just leave this with Meredith.

But um so if we could follow up with um I maybe our transportation staff, but um with the work that's being done on uh 111th and Arapaho.

Um and I've I've purposely avoided coming that way because uh but um we're seeing traffic backups on the 287, and sometimes it I mean, the last time I drove through their trend, I was almost two weeks ago.

I was almost like getting here because it took me like 20 minutes just to get them out of time.

So um yeah, if we can just yeah, I'll check with transportation and uh see what we see what they can tell me.

I can't guarantee anything, but I'll see what we can find out.

Yeah, all right, thanks.

One piece of information there.

They actually changed the 111th to have a uh dedicated turn.

Um and I think when they did that, then a rapa was backing up way too far.

Yeah, yeah.

Um I don't think I have anything else.

Um, that's it.

All right, Councilmember O'Connor.

I just wanted to mention Saturday is the spring cleanup event from uh let's see, from 8 a.m.

to 1 p.m.

at the Leon A.

World Service Center at 150 Bon L.

Um, it's a great event that I've participated in before, and just wanted to make sure that many residents knew about it as possible.

Sounds good.

Councilmember Petster Valley.

I don't know.

Um another fantastic job by the tree advisory board and the sustainability advisory board on Saturday with the Earth Day Arbor Day um event.

It was uh another great show.

Um another great show.

Yeah, wanna echo that.

Uh great job by the staff and and uh tree and sustainability advisory boards and the many vendors and all of our residents who supported it was awesome.

Uh as I mentioned, Erie B was at the uh Arbor Day year uh Earth Day event.

Uh so got the word out to even more people.

Uh said earlier, uh I heard on the first day they had seven riders, and on the fourth day on Friday, they had up to 40.

So gaining traction quickly.

Uh also uh there's free landfill drop-off, starts tomorrow, uh Wednesday, goes Wednesday to Wednesday.

Uh so you have one week uh for your free landfill.

Uh I always take advantage of that every year.

Uh my wife already has a pile uh that she's working on for me.

Also, uh on the on the May 9.

Uh Velo Solutions UCI Pump Track World Championship qualifiers at our pump track is is gonna be taking place at uh the community park.

Uh so which is a really big deal because the winners uh go to the championship in in Beijing, China.

So uh pretty amazing stuff.

So uh all happening here and here.

All right.

Great council member Bear.

Thank you very much.

Um, yes, the Arbor Day, I was amazing, so great.

Thank you, um, Councilmember O'Connor for all your work on that every year.

You do a huge heavy lift, and I just um want to acknowledge that you bring your truck full of tools and equipment, and we use all of it.

So thank you for doing that.

And then also staff.

It's a very long day um for them.

And they came out and I I was actually wrote down all the departments I remembered seeing um was parks and rec, transportation, horticulture, forestry, communications, and I'm sure there's more.

And I know that Parks and Rec was leaving Arbor Day to go to the PD to meet up with PD for the strider bike derby.

Um so thank you to staff because it wouldn't be nearly as an amazing event as without their um dedication as well, and particularly to Erica Thorley and Tom Reed.

And particularly to Erica Thorley and Tom Reed.

They do so much, and we're really grateful.

And I also wanted to thank the community and thank Shannon for her commitment to seeing seeing us through the process of getting to the public safety for all proclamation.

She and I have met pretty regularly over the past few months having coffee and just talking about what the community needs.

And I've had many meetings in the in the community with residents and talking about what I can do from my seat here to support them.

And it's it's they've been very generous with their time and their direction to me, and I'm just so thankful.

And I'm also committed to continuing the work.

I recognize that this is a beginning and that we there's more work to do, and I'm I'm committed to do that and um thankful to um be in be included and involved.

Um been up at the legislature last week.

Today was Senate Bill 150, and last week was a different number.

I don't remember the number.

Um, but it it's been I'm we just have a couple weeks left of legislation, the legislature, and I'm really uh ready for that to be done.

So all right.

Um I don't have anything tonight.

I was on vacation, actually flew in this morning after visiting my 96-year-old mother-in-law, uh, which actually I had a great time.

With that, I'm gonna look to our acting town manager, uh, Meredith, uh, for an update.

Um first I want to uh like everyone else, so I want to thank the board members and the staff for the Arbor Day Earth Day.

It was a great event, and you all gave up your Saturday to do that, so thank you for that.

And director Jackwin just gave me an update that uh the parklit patios are being installed tomorrow and that the farmers market starts next Thursday.

Very good.

All right, and we have a spot for our town attorney.

Very much appreciate that, but I don't have anything to share out.

All right, sounds good.

All right, with that, I'll look to the mayor pro tem to take us into executive session.

Thank you, mayor.

I move to go into executive session to discuss item 2026 315 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 to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of real personal or other property pursuant to CRS 2464024A, which a topic cannot be disclosed without compromising the purpose of the executive session.

All right, do we have a second?

Second.

All right, we're motion and second.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed say no.

Motion carries.

We will not uh reconvene after executive session.

Uh the meeting will end at the end of the executive session.