Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Just confirming everybody can hear me. Thumbs up if you can.

Yep.

Thank you.

Good evening, and welcome to the May 20, 2026 regular meeting of the Town of Erie Planning Commission. The time is now 6.30 PM, and I'm calling this meeting to order. Please join me for the Pledge of Allegiance.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Will the secretary please call roll?

Commissioner Booth. Here. Commissioner Lee. Here. Commissioner Dreckman. Here. Commissioner Sawish. Live from Zoom. Commissioner Schatz. Here. Vice Chair Brodess. Here. Chair Hemphill.

Here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. We have an agenda before us this evening. Does staff have any changes?

No changes.

Who would like to make a motion for tonight's agenda? motion second booth and dreckman we have a motion in a second all in favor say aye aye aye all opposed say no heard commissioner solish in there the motion passes unanimously that brings us to approval of the may 6 2026 planning commission meeting minutes do we have any changes or request to make a motion motion second we'll go with uh leaf on the second booth on the motion uh motion and a second all in favor say aye aye aye all opposed say no motion passes unanimously this brings us to the public comments portion of the meeting this is for public comments intended for items not already scheduled on the agenda to be discussed is there anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience for public comment

I do have one person in the waiting room, but they are not signed up to give public comment. So we are good.

Okay. We will move to general business. So tonight we have four items on this agenda for general business. Based on the agenda, we're hoping to be out of here by 8.45. So our first item is 2026.323, Robert's Rules Overview. The time is now 6.32 p.m. I'm making this presentation.

So Vice Chair Broadus will technically be the presiding officer while I sit over there.

And we'll get started real soon. This is fun. Good evening, Planning Commission. So this is Robert's Rules of Order for the Planning Commission that I threw together just to give us an overview of procedure. We have our two new commissioners, Commissioner Leif and Commissioner Schatz. But this will be kind of a new thing for everyone.

because this is the first I've seen this come up in this sort of way.

So just going over what I'll be talking about on the agenda, there are current rules. What are Robert's rules? Why do we want to use them? Going over the presiding officer, kind of how meetings are structured, and then we'll just give a quick look at motions and how they work generally. So our current rules of procedure is dictated by Resolution 22-149. It has some hints of Robert's Rules in there. It kind of gives us guidelines on meeting structure. I just gave a quick link. I believe it's actually in our agenda packet as well. So it's nothing too exciting. And it really just covers officers, chair, vice chair, that we have meetings at 6.30 on the first and third Wednesdays unless we cancel agendas, procedure, and public comment order. So generally, like I said, follows Robert's rules. So what are Robert's rules? The latest edition was released in 2020. It's the 12th edition. It is 800 odd pages of riveting information. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't really apply to this Board because it's designed broadly for huge groups. So we're a group of seven so we can get away with a lot more It doesn't need to be as formal just because there's not a generally everyone has an opportunity to speak There's also Robert's Rules in Brief, so that's only 200 pages, but there's a lot of charts in there, so it's a little bit easier to get through. So I've referenced both of them. I have copies of both just to read them. And then on Monday, I learned from Elliot that we have Bob's Rules of Order, different Robert, that was created by an attorney in Colorado. And that covers more quasi-judicial matters that come up. So Robert's Rules doesn't really touch on quasi-judicial stuff. It just really talks about procedure. So I found like a 30 page PDF that was easy to read, but apparently there's a bit more. So if we ever get to adopting formal rules for ourself, we'll definitely reference that.

So thanks for the info.

Um, so why do we want to use Robert's rules? I just put this quote in here. Um, it's really just to make sure that meetings are run efficiently and everyone's heard. That's kind of the process of, um, making sure that this board comes to a majority opinion and that the people who aren't in that majority are allowed to speak their mind. So if we're all in agreement, then it's relatively straightforward. We don't really need Robert's rules when we all like the thing that's coming up, but that doesn't happen. So we just need to make sure that things run smoothly. So I like this part. It's to balance the rights of everyone on the board. So the majority, again, is the voice of the planning commission. For here, the majority is what happens. The minority is also important. It's important that the minority is heard. Each individual is important. So each individual needs to be heard. People who aren't able to make the meeting for whatever reason, as life happens. and making sure that we as a body are, the decisions that we make as a body are agreed upon effectively. So the presiding officer is the chair and the vice chair. So I'm the chair. Vice Chair Broadus is the vice chair currently. We're actually voting on these at our next meeting. So that'll come up in two weeks. So if the chair isn't present, the vice chair takes the meeting. And if neither the chair or vice chair are present, someone gets to be voluntold to preside over the meeting. Typically, if that happens, there'll be notice and we can sort that out or we'll go from there. So duties of the chair, again, I'm not going to read all of these, but it's effectively to make sure that the process is flowing and to keep parliamentary rule happy and follow our procedure so if there's a lawsuit for something that we do if we're following everything properly we're kind of covered but that gets covered in more of the the source of training that's happening june 1st but this the rules of procedure help us be clear especially with our motions of what we're deciding So, election process just want to go over this just because it's next meeting. The nominations happen from the chair or the floor anyone can be nominated, and then we'll do a ballot vote or roll call vote. And what's important is that a majority is required. So if three people want to be chair and the vote is split where there aren't four votes for one person, then we revote until someone gets at least four votes. So a majority has to happen. There'll be runoffs. People can leave as needed, but it's not like a plurality where most votes win. It's because the chair needs to be elected by the majority.

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

So basic meeting of the structure, basic meeting structure, we've kind of already started. You've seen some of this. We have our quorum for our body of seven. That means we need at least four members here. If we have someone resign and they're not replaced, the quorum is half. So then we'd only need three members if we have an empty seat. We'll cross that bridge if we get there, but right now our quorum is four. So we go through our minutes. Again, these are per Robert's rules, not quite what we do. We typically finish our business at our meetings. so for us we have our public comment tonight we didn't have anyone making a public comment which is typical for Planning Commission not so much Town Council but for our general public comment we have that and then we adopt our agenda before each meeting So we get our agenda sent out beforehand. And the reason that I ask if anyone has any changes is because the majority is the rule of this commission. So if four people want to add something to an agenda, or remove something from an agenda, we can put the agenda to a vote, say I move to strike the item number, and then we'll take a vote. And if it passes, we won't discuss that that night. So that doesn't often come up, but our agenda is a motion that happens. As you can see, we kind of move through it because typically our agendas are pretty straightforward, and we can go through them or bring them up beforehand. And then at the end, we have our planning commissioner reports, and that's just kind of an open forum for each person to talk about. something that's not necessarily related. For example, at the last meeting, I talked about the town fair. So So I just wanted to put this table of definitions. There's an alphabetical order here. So appeal as the chair, I'm kind of the parliamentarian, which means that I make sure we're following the rules per my understanding. I am only human. So if I make a mistake or you believe I make a mistake, you can appeal my decision. If the majority that are present agree with that motion then we'll go with that so I'm not king as chair I'm just the one who gets to talk the most so the main motion that's typically what we talk about um when we're doing any work here so that's the the primary motion of for tonight we have a public hearing and a code those would be the main motions um like i said the majority it's greater than 50 percent not greater than or equal to so it's important to to know the distinction so if we were at an empty seat and down to six people you'd still need four votes for a majority Maybe I misspoke about quorum, so we'll cross that bridge if we need to. uh previous question that's effectively closing debate and calling the vote so if it gets too rowdy or we're not really getting anywhere you can call the previous question and that we take a vote i believe it's two-thirds i have it referenced in here but if two-thirds of the commission thinks it's time to just take the vote we've had enough debate then we take the vote A privileged motion is something that's not really related to business. According to Robert's rules, adjournment is a privileged motion. It's listed in the detail page, but you can bring up a privileged motion at any time. The question is really just the formal way of saying the thing that we're debating, and the subsidiary motion is effectively a motion after within the other motion i don't have a great example but you might get there i'm not going to go through this list but it really talks about the the type of motion um if you can debate it so like the main motion we obviously debate um but if we Like if someone makes a motion to recess, we're not going to have a debate if we should take a five-minute break. We're just going to take the vote and then take a recess or not. So if I make, again, on recess, if we amend, be like I move to recess for 15 minutes and then someone I amend to five minutes, then we can do that sort of thing. That's what amend means. And then how the vote works is a majority or two thirds. So again, to close the debate is two thirds because a strong, effectively a super majority of the commission has determined that we're ready to take a vote. Whereas like the motion to adjourn, if three people still wanna hang out here for a while, but four people don't, then we're gonna leave. So that's kind of how that works. and then the the motion order so this talks about robert's rules i believe it's slightly different in bob's rules in my quick review of this but the the privileged motion you can see that adjournment is one of the the highest privilege motions here that just means that we can really end the meeting if so needed i mean if there's like a tornado coming by we can adjourn the meeting in the middle of debate that sort of thing that's that's the point of adjournment being such a high um privilege and as you can see down at the very bottom the main motion again is the thing we're debating so things happen as the motion progresses So motion process, a member requests to make a motion, and then the chair recognizes that member. So part of parliamentary procedure is that people don't speak unless they've been recognized. So to make a motion, you need to be recognized. To make a second, you don't need to be recognized. it just keeps things keeps people from talking over each other so when another commissioner has the floor we respect their time and if they start going over time that's the chair's role is to rein them back in and make sure that the meeting progresses So that's why we recognize a member. So when the member is recognized, you make the motion, we use the words, I printed it out now so we can see the script. Per Robert's rules, or I guess we get the second. Again, no one needs to be recognized to make a second. You just say second. At least for staff here, it's helpful if you say your name or last name. That helps with the minutes of who's making motions in seconds. and then per robert's rule it says the chair states the question so the way that works is someone would make a motion uh motion to approve the resolution and then all the words second and then the chair should Repeat that exactly. That's a little cumbersome because we do have really well-defined motions. So I think in this for efficiency, it's been, I think, pretty clear. If it's not clear what you're voting on, ask you don't want to vote yes or no to something that you're not sure what you're voting on and that's always acceptable to to ask for the the floor to clarify what we're voting on sometimes that comes up with a motion to reject so if we want to reject something and it's a little weird because if you vote no on a motion to reject it's not quite accepting because there could be another motion but it's kind of a double negative so If you're not sure it's always appropriate to clarify what you're voting on. And then the chair, after the question, we're supposed to have debate. Again, we typically debate beforehand, I think even in Bob's rules. And the quick thing, it says that debate can happen before the motion, and that helps if we want any amendments on the motion. So having a debate before the motion helps a really clean motion that we create. So if we wanna amend something by, I'm thinking in the past, we added the definition to a code change. So we debated that, kind of had consensus that it was going to pass. So it was the motion was to approve with the amendment, read the motion and the amendment. So then it's very clear what we're voting on. So then the question is when we go to vote, we can do roll call votes. Anyone can request a roll call vote. I didn't ask for that for the agenda, but I will for all the others. But we're By charter, you have to do a roll call vote for budgetary stuff, which we typically don't see here. So we can do voice votes for pretty much everything we do. I might call a roll call vote, but again, if someone wants to request a roll call vote, it takes an extra minute, it's not too bad. And then we announce the result. So it's clear for the minutes of what the result was. If, for example, we do a voice vote and there's going to be three nos and four yeses, and I hear four yeses, but we're not sure, we can revote. We can say, there's a formal phrase, I forget what it is, but we can say, can we request a roll call vote to make sure we get it right? So again, we want to make sure that it's clear what we're voting on and how we vote. So motion process is I'd like to make a motion. The chair would say, would recognize that member. And then I move to approve the language of the resolution. We get a second from the crowd and then there's a motion and a second, and then we call the vote. So that's my presentation.

Any questions from anybody?

And I'm not sure, Mr. Chair, whether I'm asking Mr. Chair, Mr. Chair, but are we saying that there is no debate after the motion is stated?

Typically, in the way we have done this, typically no. We can. Actually, I believe... In my script, I do have the debate available after the motion is stated. But just with the way we've worked, we sometimes don't have debate after the motion is called.

But it's not disallowed.

It's not disallowed, yeah.

Any other questions?

I don't have a question, but I have a comment. I just noticed on the motion to adjourn, there is no debate allowed on that. I just wanted to point that out.

And that is one of the only motions that can be made without a quorum. If someone leaves it in the middle, you're not stuck.

Yeah, that's a good call. So again, it's like a motion to adjourn, but then we take the vote. And if it fails, then if you keep calling for a motion to adjourn after it's failed, then I gavel you down. Anything else?

Just a comment. I want to thank you for doing this. I understand this is the first time the commission has had this sort of orientation, and I think it's a great positive step. So thank you.

Thank you. Anything from space?

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

Oh, go ahead.

Yeah, I want to reiterate what was just said. Chair Hebbel, thank you for putting this together. Bob's rules of order and Robert's rules of order, summarizing it into a handful of slides is not an easy task, so thank you. There was a question that was noted about debate after a second. As per the resolution that was approved previously in 2022 that we follow, yes, debate and discussion can occur after the second has occurred. But as Chair Humphill said, very rarely happens, but it can. And then real quickly, I know, Chair Humphill, you had said This doesn't really apply too much to quasi-judicial matters. This is largely for legislative matters. For quasi-judicial matters, two things. One, I want to remind everybody, questions As a first round and then deliberation as a second round should always occur. And then also we can recommend approval approve with conditions or denial. Those are the only three when it comes to quality additional matters. Those are the only options that we have regarding items.

Thank you. All right. That's it. I'll go take my roll back in the center.

Thank you for the presentation.

oh yeah i got to keep going yeah our second item is 2026-332 public hearing a resolution of the planning commission of the town of erie recommending that the town council approve the erie junction duplex special review use the time is now 6 54 pm and i'm opening the public hearing i'll turn it over to staff and then the applicant for their presentations

Thank you, Chris Lueber, Principal Planner at the Town of Erie. And I'm here tonight to present the Erie Junction Duplex Special Review Use. So this is for the Planning Commission recommendation on the special reviews to use the site for duplexes. The project site overall is 2.73 acres. The existing zoning is Old Town Residential or OTR. The existing use, they are currently vacant lots. Here's kind of a quick overview of the development process. Typically you start with the annexation, initial zoning, head to rezoning, preliminary plat, then there's a final plat, do public improvements, site plans if they're necessary, and then building permits. And I've kind of plugged the process in for this one here at the end because the preliminary and final plats were already approved prior to the special reviews. being heard, and so that's why we're here tonight is to discuss the merits on the special reviews itself. So I'll go over the background, the proposal, and then the recommendation. So here's the location. The subject site's northeast of County Line Road and Balcombe Street. It's highlighted in the red on the screen in front of you. And Balcombe Street's to the south, and County Line is there on the west on the photo. You can see the surrounding areas, predominantly single-family homes and old-town residential. And across the street, you have some commercial-type properties. I'll show you that on the zoning map. Here's some photos of the site and surrounding area. This is approximately on the corner of the property looking north on County Line and the arrows pointing north there next to the site plan. This is looking east along Balcombe on the south side of the property. And then this is looking east into the property from that corner there. So here's the site zoning and surrounding area. The property itself, again, is zoned old town residential. It does allow single family detached units as a permitted use. Duplex or single family attached are only allowed by a special review use review. In the OTR zone district, just a couple of quick facts on it. When used for single family detached, it has a $5 unit per acre. Maximum if it's used for multifamily you're allowed to go up to 10 dwelling units per acre and then I will share the comprehensive plan designation for the site and surrounding area it's residential medium the residential medium designation allows a mix of housing types. It could be small lot, single family, detached. It allows duplexes, townhomes, and smaller scale type apartments. Sometimes you hear the term garden apartments. It references in the comp plan. Those are just lower, shorter type buildings. The density currently for residential medium is 8 to 18 dwelling units per acre. So if you recall, you could go up to 10 by the zoning. The project itself comes in at 8.42 dwelling units per acre overall. So it's well under the zoning minimum and it's just a little bit over the minimum for the comp plan designation. So there's a variety of comprehensive plan policies that are listed, some of which would support the project. One of which is making sure that new development meets the plan vision and priorities. Developing duplexes will help contribute to the need for more diverse housing typologies and improved affordability within the community. There's one that talks about locating higher density and mixed use development areas that could possibly be served by transit. Medium density development supports the neighborhood center of historic Old Town and is near the Erie Town Center. There are talks of being able to do bus stops towards Town Center. So I'll go over the proposal next. Here's the site again with a conceptual site plan that's laid out on the existing lots. This again is for the duplex uses. There's 10 buildings, total of 20 units. The ones over here on the west are front loaded. That means they have garages that are oriented towards the front of the house. And then the 14 units here that are duplex are alley loaded, meaning they front on a street and their garages are accessed by a rear alley. And that's what you see sort of in this middle part. You can see garages here then over here. So there be a future architecture reviews just to make sure that all the units meet the minimum requirements for the design guidelines of the town. But here is a artist's drawing that they have provided that shows what they have in mind in terms of how these would look. And again, these aren't final. They shouldn't be considered final. And then here's some views of some of the models that they're proposing for the duplexes. And this one in particular has the attached garage. So these are the alley-loaded garages, I'm sorry. And then this one shows a detached garage. I do think they have contemplated some differences. Like this previous one you see is an attached garage. I think the concept plan showed detached on some of them, but there's no prohibition from them sort of changing that up. We'd review that with their architecture reviews administrative level. I think they were looking to maybe change some of that to some degree. So on the screen now are the approval criteria against which the application was reviewed. Staff found that it met all these requirements. Some of these are generally consistent with the comp plan and applicable provisions of the UDC, being consistent with the purpose and the intent of the zone district. It's generally consistent with any use standards set forth in the code. It's compatible with adjacent uses in terms of scale and site design and operating characteristics and wouldn't have any outside negative effects to surrounding properties. If there are any significant impacts anticipated, then they'd be mitigated or offset to the maximum extent reasonably practical.

So obviously during a construction period, there would be

A little disturbance to the area, but construction sites are required to keep dust down and make sure that they try to follow similar routes when they're bringing supplies to the site. There has to be adequate assurance of continuing maintenance have been provided. Those have all been established through the plat review and the development agreement. Any significant adverse impacts on the natural environment are mitigated to the extent reasonable or practical. So staff find that the application complies with approval criteria. We recommend that Planning Commission adopt the resolution recommending approval of the Erie Junction Duplex Special Review Use to Town Council. The applicant did have the required neighborhood meeting on April 16th. He had reported that four attendees attended that meeting. All the appropriate notices had been met to include publishing the paper, posting the site physically, and then having letters sent to adjacent property owners. So that concludes the staff presentation tonight. Happy to answer any questions. The applicant does not have a presentation prepared, but he's obviously here and he can come up. I think he maybe wanted to share a few things. So with that, I will conclude my report.

Thank you, Chris. My name is Nick Jacobs. I live at 270 West Sycamore Lane in Louisville, Colorado. I remember Commissioner Leaf during the first time we did this four and a half years ago. And I thought that that was you. Maybe it's not. I thought you were the only commissioner that was still on, but I guess not.

Okay, everybody's new.

We're here today to talk about the Erie Junction project. This project has been completed for quite some time. We received in August of last year, our initial acceptance from the town of Erie for all of the infrastructure associated with the project. We then ran into the inability to get financing for the project. My business, my company, we are not Toll Brothers, we're not KB. And by a show of hands, which commissioner here would rather see KB and Toll Brothers be the only builders in Erie? Of course no one would. It's a rhetorical question because it's a very important question to what I'm about to talk about. which is, I would like to know if any commissioner here has not read the letter that I sent along with my application associated with this today. So this is a very serious problem, and it involves a group and a party of people, and it involves governments and local municipalities that transition between people, and that transition into different groups. No one in the commission, not Chris, not Kelly, no one is trying to be malicious or cruel. But the problem is that I wasn't given due process in any ethical or moral way, let alone a legal way. And if I was KB or Toll Brothers, I would not be standing before you six months later trying to get this done. This would have been done when we submitted our applications in November for a building permit. What Chris described in his flow chart of timing accurately describes the process. And during the preliminary plat and at final plat, which goes back almost three and a half to four and a half years ago, I was verbally told that we were done, that SRU and the triplex site plan were reviewed because they were. I spent over $300,000 to get it approved. We are not a big company. I don't have a legal team to fight this. But we did, and I was told that. But what happened was something in the commission, not the commission, excuse me, somewhere in that final plan process, the SRU was not issued. I was told that we were done, and it would be any further architecture review would have been done administratively. And that, why else would I, you know, I've done so many entitlements across so many jurisdictions. If any of you had a chance to look at what we've done in downtown Lafayette with Cannon Trail, what we did for the Marshall Fire where I live, and rebuilding for that. I know what we're doing with respect to entitlement. And I did it for 20 years prior to that for corporations building cell phone towers. and doing other telecommunications development like data centers on the East coast. And this dates back 20 years. So I'm not naive about it. I know that we're all trying to volunteer and do what we can as a group, but I'm really frustrated that my due process wasn't given to me. And then I didn't receive a call from someone from council, from someone from commission. and that my only communication and my only point was through Ms. Driscoll and Mr. LaRue, who, granted, wonderful people, but there was a misstep that was made, and that misstep has cost me six months of time. Every month I sit there is about $14,000 in interest, plus another $4,000 in property taxes, insurance, and maintenance. So it's about $18,000, I'm burning, 18 to 20,000 a month, just to sit idle and we've sat long enough right so that's 120 000. does the commission know that the town of erie is going to make 2.2 million dollars on the fees that i'm going to pay for 23 homes I'm gonna pay 2.2 million to the town of Erie, not taxes, for the right to build, the right to water, and the right for permit review, of which I've already paid about 350,000. But each development, we will pay 2.2, that's in today's numbers. It may go up as the development continues. And for that kind of payment, That's a big number to a little guy like me. That's tremendous. And it's a big number to someone who wants to create affordability. And so our development costs, our density had to be low. You heard it's 8.4. It's as low as it could be. We don't get the luck of being more dense in terms of our utilization of units. We are stuck with that number. We've built it out. I'm good with it. But boy, has it been a frustrating process. And trust me when I say I know that no one on this commission or in this room wants to create that type of frustration. But I think that I was not given due process. And I ask that you think consider that seriously. And so when I'm applying for my permits and I'm forking out $180,000 to the town for the right to build one duplex, that people actually think about that. I meant what I said, that I wanted an apology from this town council. I wanted to have some form of remuneration from the town of Erie for what I'm doing. I don't think it's fair. I don't think it's ethical. I'm gonna move forward with my project either way, but I'm not gonna stop talking about it.

It's not right.

Any questions about the SRU, about the development itself? I'm more than happy to answer anyone's questions with respect to architecture, style, kind of what we're thinking about. The market has definitely changed in the three years since we started this development, or five years, really, since we started it, but in the last three significantly. I'm happy to answer any question anyone would have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation and your comments. The time is now 7.10 p.m., and we'll move to public testimony. Is there anyone in the waiting room signed up or in the audience for public comment?

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

All right. We'll move to Commissioner questions. What we do here is we start with two questions and go around just to make sure everyone has an opportunity to speak before someone asks all the good questions. And Commissioner Sawash, are you okay with starting from the sky and I can't see your hand raised?

Yeah, I am. Thank you. All right. So there was a comment that was provided to this body that was, I believe, added to the agenda related to the north fence line. And there was a question related to the upkeep as well as rebuild of the fence. So does the applicant by chance

have any comments related to what the plan is for that area i do if we can pull up the site plan from the planning documents i'll talk to it that's great On the two corners of the northern boundary of the property where the two new buildings are shown as proposed in this graphical illustration, those two fences will be new, constructed. The area that is what I call the concrete horseshoe, which is the alley in the back that runs east-west, There's a fence that runs in that area. We will not replace any or repair any fencing there. That is the owner's fences in that area. And they can take care of it. We will take care of everything on the other side of that fence. We will mow it. We will maintain it as it is our requirement to do so.

Is the fence on the property line or is it on the property of the Northern owners.

In certain areas, I believe, almost exclusively, Commissioner, I think that it is on the property line of the owners in every case. That being said, that fencing area in that area is in generally good condition, generally. It's the areas where we're building new housing in the upper left and upper right areas. Those are the areas where the fences have fallen apart, and we will replace those because we're going to be building homes there now.

those are my two questions thank you thank you commissioner um so i guess my first question is for staff um the premise of the sru was for the change in design on the garages am i correct no the purpose for the special review use is to allow a duplex use in the otr old town residential zone district so initially it was single family

That's what's currently allowed in that zone district, yes. It's been zoned that for quite some time. So that's the only use that's permitted is single family detached as a use by right.

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

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

Okay. Vice Chair Brotis?

Okay, so I understand your point about the fence, and you are saying that you will maintain things that are on the southern side of the fence. Correct. Okay, that's my only question.

Okay.

I'll just keep going down the line.

I have a quick comment on the fence, too. I was just looking at the ALTA survey, and it doesn't look like any of it comes over. It looks like it's all on the property line or on the folks' homes to the north.

Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. uh my one question um i know there's some relatively new duplexes on bridge street are these nominally the same height or do you know the relative height compared to those buildings those are taller those are taller that's what i have we have different height restrictions because we're in the old town district the bridge street development was in the same area but i think it was subjected or allowed to have a different height

Chris, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's, they're definitely, they will be, they are taller and they will be taller. What we're doing are two stories. We have a height restriction, I think it's, is it 24?

It's 35 feet is the max height in the Old Town Residential District for a home, 25 feet for an accessory. I can't remember how tall your homes were looking. I could look at one.

I don't think the duplexes were. When we initially did this, Commissioner, I wanted to try to compete with the Toll Brothers style, which is a three-story structure that has the pull-in garage on the first floor and then you kind of walk up to your living second and then you have a roof. That was what I was thinking initially, but we weren't allowed to get that height. during that period, during final plat and preliminary plat period in 21 and 20, 21 and even into 22. So when we did all of that work, we just let go of that and we went with the designs that you saw earlier, which is a two-story where you have a single-story, I mean, excuse me, a walk-up first floor, a second floor, and then a roof. And we're not going to do flat roofs. That's not congruent with the style in Old Town either. I wouldn't do a modern-style roof. This isn't right for that area.

Thank you. Mr. Jackman?

Chris, these duplexes are consistent with the comp plan, correct? Because this is residential median?

Yes, they definitely are. The comprehensive plan designates a variety of housing, including single family, small lots, duplexes, small apartment type buildings. So those are all supported with the comp plan itself.

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

Repair the?

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

Oh, I see what you're asking. No, if it's an off-site fence that somebody else owns, there's no requirement that would mandate a private developer to fix something like that.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Lee? Yeah, I just had two questions. One's a clarification. In the slide deck, the first slide in the presentation of the proposal noted 10 buildings and 20 units. I counted 11 buildings and 22 units, and the applicant referred to 23 units. Correct.

So this SRU is an application for the duplexes? Okay. There's one triplex building. And if we go back to the. Mr. LaRue will show you if you see his cursor there. So that is a triplex and that will have to be subject to a separate review, a site plan review, which we did also back in 21 and 20. And we'll do it again.

Okay, good.

Thank you.

And then the other question I had concerned the garages. The elevation of the garage showed a second floor window. Is that intended to be an occupiable space, a dwelling unit above the garage? We were trying initially.

The biggest catalyst or the biggest problem I have as a business person trying to do this is construction costs that I have to do two different buildings on a lot and that the garages even though there's two garages there that's really it was intended to be another building to make it an accessory dwelling unit that people could use that plus the houses are two different structures they have two different forms of plumbing two different sewer line two different everything And what that did is it kind of pushed up my expense considerably. And I couldn't get the project funded last summer because of that. And I was afraid that if I went to market, I would come out with a product that was selling in the low eight, high sevens, best case, high sevens, and right across the street is Toll Brothers selling a product for $600,000. Right across the street. And so it's, you know, this is just the nature of Big business versus small business. And when I bought this lot five years ago, my intention was to kind of create what I thought would be more of a high-end duplex product for people that wanted to live and walk into Old Town and have that walkability. I still believe that's the case. I still believe we have a good market for that. But I have to bring down my costs and bring down the style because if you're a new home buyer and you're looking at one of our properties that is walkable into town for 780. Or you can buy a Toll Brothers duplex a half a mile away for 620 or 650. What are you going to do? as a young buyer right or not it's it's a challenging situation for me but that's really what this came down to which is why i've stated in my narrative the the ability to look at doing detached garage attached garage which is less costly to build an attached garage scenario so it's only one building or no garage at all and allow the homeowner to possibly get into their home, like many people did in the 50s and 60s and 70s, to get into their home, build some equity, build some capital, and then build a garage at a different time, right?

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

I want to try to make this so it's attainable for people so we can get in there and give people a product like we did in Lafayette. I'm so proud of what we were able to achieve in downtown Lafayette. And it really is a mirror image of what you see here. It was on the eastern border of Old Town Lafayette. This is on the western border of Old Town Erie. It's the exact same vibe in many ways. And I loved the fact that I could give people the ability to buy into that neighborhood, buy a home for themselves, and instantly have equity for them, right? That's what I'm doing as a business. I could care less about building McMansions and building houses for wealthy people. This is what I want to do. This is why I quit the corporate world is to try to get in and build housing for people. And I don't want to do it through affordable housing and public housing. I want to try to build it in a way that is just straight up market style, market dynamics. Thank you. Sorry for the long-winded message, by the way.

A couple of quick comments, too, from us on those comments as well. Yeah, there's we're totally open to working with alternative ideas and so requirements per se for garages or Detached or attached either of those things can work. There's no issue whatsoever Just a quick note on the triplex unit. Yes, it's correct. It's not included in this request we had wanted to include that if we could but Mr. Jacobs wanted to just move forward with the duplexes so that will need to be a future application.

We'll work with him on that We really need to get get running Commissioner Schatz Okay, Mr. Jacob.

Thanks for being here if our rules allow I might circle back to you But I'm gonna get some confined to two questions for now. So for staff I Let's talk hypothetically about a fence on a north property boundary. Apparently there will be one, at least built by the developer, where there's a unit on the west and the east. And you had indicated in your presentation, Chris, that the city has accepted the infrastructure requirement. There is no homeowners association, anything of the nature of offense, is that, who's gonna maintain that in the future?

Yeah, I can let Nick answer that. I think they have common stuff to take care of through the detention area and the Shared the alleys this is a common interest.

Yes, sir. So Commissioner Schatz the entire Concrete the streets the alleys The detention pond there's about a six-foot landscape buffer it varies in size But just we'll call it a sort of a landscape median buffer that runs along Balcombe and along County Line Road all of those areas plus all of those areas were to be considered part of the HOA. I was not going to do fencing as part of the HOA. I didn't do it at my development in Lafayette, and it's actually worked out really well for the HOA and the people of the HOA. it's it's a debatable issue I understand but they you know I the majority of comments I got back went after the declarant which is what we were called in an HOA when when it handed over to the people that actually owned the homes they were like thank you for not forcing us to have to police the fencing for everybody in the area so

i do have a second question mr chair thank you um yes thank you for that answer um back to the staff report and this is in the written staff report and i understand we're not going to adjudicate due process and that kind of thing that is simply not what we do But Chris, if you could help me understand the comment back to 2021 in the timeline presented page two of your report. Planning process was completed prior to the SRU moving forward. This is allowed by code but is an atypical process. Why do we have this disconnect between what you're saying and what the applicant is saying?

Yeah, so atypical. That's used mainly because It makes more sense to run them concurrently, but the code doesn't prohibit it.

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

Right. So he did it, obviously some of the information presented is true. Initially we had intended to run it that way. We had different leadership at the time that decided that that process should go with preliminary leading the final and then final plat, making sure that those lots were created before the use permit. Clearly, it's not preferred. I mean, obviously, if we had done that, we wouldn't be here, but do that as it may.

Thank you. We'll move back to Commissioner Salish.

Okay. For staff, just to confirm, preliminary plat has been approved. The final plat has been approved. We have a developer agreement in place and the horizontal development, i.e. the infrastructure has been completed to the town standards and accepted by the town.

Correct. All of the things related to the final plat. So that would be all the roads and common features. Yes.

Okay. And just to confirm, the infrastructure that was put in place was anticipating the duplexes and single triplex going in there. I'm going to look to the applicant for that one.

Well, I can answer that too. And if Nick wants to, he can. Yes, to answer your question, that's what it was designed for.

Okay. And hypothetically, and I'm going to ask, um, Mr. LaRue, as well as the applicant, the same question. If we did not recommend approval, if the council were to not approve, what would be the next steps for the applicant?

Right, so just taking that question at face value, what options would present themselves if it weren't successful? It's zoned OTR, so it would support single family. Options could be looked at, I'm not saying they're viable, but you could potentially amend the plat to facilitate a single family development on the site.

And for the applicant?

I can't predict what type of legislative changes would be required. We never intended and never built the infrastructure. We never moved forward with the infrastructure development agreement or with spending the $2 million it took to get it done in order to be in this room today and have to re-build. assess what we what we believe we were already approved for Commissioner I don't know what to tell you I don't know what I would do okay thank you those are my two questions I'll ask this but obviously if when building something damages the fence then you would fix it but I'm not 100% correct obviously yes

um okay thank you the appreciate that you have a letter and you have some other supporting material mr jacobs including this neighborhood meeting report uh do i understand this is from 2025 or 2026. 26 okay if there's a 25 in there it's a typo my apologies okay good so this is very current um can you tell me a little bit about the one versus two car garages attached versus detached i i didn't get a whole lot of idea how committed uh you are to any particular design or how much that's causing anyone any concerns

I can't comment on the concern aspect because I'm not others. The options don't concern me. What concerns me is starting off with a product that is sellable, that people will buy. So for me, I don't know yet, and I have to work. Before you can even get to sell, you have to get to finance and lending and what banks will lend. And so what I ran into last summer was banking, both private banking and public banking's unwillingness to lend for a project based on the tight margins that we were showing with a separate garage system a separate garage with a livable area above it and a house and so then we retooled it and we were found a way to get better banking to do it with it connected because it was at lower cost at that point and since then the market has even gotten worse and so what i'm looking to consider with banks and other lenders that i'm talking to to finance the project is whether or not we're going to go to market with the duplex with a detached garage and offer the detached garage as a separate add-on as an option or an add-on is what home builders will do so we'll have a base price that is the house and that would include a carpet pad and a port and then the option of second to that would be paying more for the detached garage

In like a bank of garages, they'd be a building gang together?

Well, they're not all gang together. So each of the duplexes are on their own separate lots. I do a duplex property where I split it in half. so that they the buyers of those homes have what's called fee simple ownership and it allows them to get a better interest rate for their loan and when i do that we had originally proposed showing the garages as butting right up against each other just like the duplexes did but what we would do is just separate that and we would separate them so that if one unit wanted to build their garage they could and if the other one did not they didn't have to So that was the thinking we would do at this time. And I don't have a perfect answer for you. I still have to get, like banks and lenders won't really talk to me anymore until I get this SRU done. They want to know that we've got it through and that we can actually have real conversations with them about it. Thank you.

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

We aren't expecting to change site plan. There would be no modification whatsoever to site plan.

People aren't approving a site plan right now? This is just a concept? Yeah, let's clarify. Yeah, let's clarify a few things on that just to follow up on what Kelly said. Duplexes do not require site plan review by the town. They're allowed to go and get building permits once they're permitted through SRU. And SRU is contemplating the use itself. That's duplexes in the OTR residential zone. When he applies for permits, he can change. This is not a formal reviewed site plan. This is a concept plan. You should think of it that way. It predominantly will probably resemble this, but I think the primary thing that you'll see is locations of garages could flex a little as long as they stay within parameters of the OTR zone, setbacks, et cetera. They're not locked in necessarily. So I think that's what I wanted to add.

You have another question?

I will have comment.

Okay. Any final questions from Commissioner Salish?

I do. I'm going to pull this thread. Mr. LaRue, you had said initially there was an application that came through. I'm assuming the one that was in 2021. It was for preliminary plat site plan and SRU at one time. You had made the comments, I believe we had different leadership at the time who believed that we should get the preliminary plat through first and then move through the other process. Is that what I am to understand?

Yes, the original site plan was only for the triplex unit, not for the duplexes. And again, site plan not required for those.

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

That's correct.

Okay. All right, that's all the questions I have. Thank you.

Final questions. Okay, great. Time is now 7.35 p.m., and I'm closing the public hearing. And then to Commissioner Doberation, I'll open the floor if who wants to start.

I can.

That works. Commissioner Sawish.

Okay. Staff, I appreciate you taking the time to So work this all out for the applicant. Thank you for being before us. In your letter for the narrative for the application, it said that, it says, I expect an apology from the planning commission and town council and remuneration for the town's cost of delays via reduction of building permits and water rights fees. We are not the body that would be able to provide any reductions in any of the permit and water right fees. We could potentially make a recommendation for that, but I believe that would be outside of our purview. I The apology that I would like to make to you is as the only individual here in the room, except for Mr. LaRue and Melinda, we were the only individuals who have been here, who heard your sketch plan, who had a preliminary plat reviewed, who also... saw the final plat. I was a planning commissioner that reviewed your sketch plan at the beginning of 2021, provided a recommendation for approval back in 2021, as well as a council member who approved your final plat in 2023. I have never had an applicant come before us with a gall or demand like I have seen tonight. I have never had to say this to a single applicant, I have never heard this from a single applicant. I understand your frustration. This is something that obviously staff is going to be looking at and reviewing to figure out how we can change the process. But I have never had an applicant come before us and demand what you have, nor ask the questions to us at the beginning of an application, nor to make the remarks that you have at all. I have seen hundreds of applications and I have never seen that. I would like to extend an apology that this process has occurred how it has. However, every single public notice that occurs for any of your applications have exactly what is on there. And SRU was noted in the preliminary plat as required during the process. And I don't know what might have been discussed outside of the public hearing, but we as planning commissioners, the council members, we cannot have any discussions related to an application because it is a quasi-judicial nature. So I do apologize that you weren't able to have these frustrations and remarks brought to us or the, you know, potentially the council in the future. But I would say I would change your demeanor real quick. And I apologize if I'm being very brash, but again, I have never heard an applicant come before this body or the council or the former board of trustees in this manner. I am, in the mind that there is no reason for us to deny this application. It has gone through all the approvals required. This is a formality in my eyes. But we have the development agreements, the final plat, preliminary plat, everything already approved. This is basically just putting a bow on it. So, again, I- Commissioner, it's a $200,000 bow.

This is just a, this is a non.

So, I... i have no concerns with recommending approval however i understand the frustration but i would not in my personally having been on the other side of where this is going to next it is not going to be received well for the applicants if they if they come with the same demeanor so i would strongly recommend a change in the way that this is brought forward. Again, I understand the frustration. So those are all my comments. Thank you.

I think my comment is let's most of us are new to this or this application. Let's concentrate on moving forward rather than revisiting the past.

for those who were not aware i've seen a few special review cases in my life In our code, the purpose of special review use is to address, and this is a quote, unique or widely varying operating characteristics or unusual site development features. Procedure encourages public review and evaluation of the uses operating characteristics and site development features. I have never seen a use by special review, special review use, special exception. There are many ways to phrase this. without conditions. Maybe this is the one exception and that's because this probably shouldn't be required to go through a special review use in the first place. That said, it does disturb me that we are not allowed to talk about the site's unique development features. I very much understood that walking in, but I think we have a code problem. This probably isn't the place to let it play out, though. So that's my comment for now.

I just have a comment about the, I mean, just the code. I agree that the code needs to be updated. That's in progress, but just in 10.3.1 table permitted uses, a duplex is a special review use in Old Town. So that's just how it is. I think it's worth evaluating that as we go through our code updates. So we don't have to do this again. That's my comment. Again, with Commissioner Salish, I don't have any issues with approving this.

Yeah, just I won't comment on the process, which concerns me. But on the merits of the case, I welcome the diversity of housing that this provides. And I appreciate that and will support it.

Anybody want to make a motion?

since you prefer uh conditions before i do i do believe mr chair yeah uh we have heard about fence uh there is a mechanism for a fence to be maintained uh that's already part of the site plan i guess uh or the forthcoming site plans that may be the triplex on the east but not the west Seems to me like we might want to have a condition about the fence. I'm very confused about the garage style. That is properly addressed by special use review. I don't know that we have a basis to condition tonight, but it would be appropriate and within our power. So I don't know what others think about that. I kind of feel like there should be something about the fence.

What would you think about the fence?

that there be a condition to construct and have the HOA, whatever the mechanism is, maintain the fences constructed and has been presented through this process.

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

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

I would just say that the conclusion I've come to is that the fence that's already existing on the property of the neighbors the neighbor's property and so i'm not sure we can give a condition for that to be maintained by somebody else right it would be a condition to build a prop a fence along this property building okay an additional fence i personally would not support that commission yeah i don't have a strong opinion i think if anything it'd be the east and west fence that i could potentially support but not a full property

What a clarification for the town attorney. Would this be something that would be addressed in an amended developer agreement?

I do not believe so. The development agreement has been executed and it addresses public infrastructure for the most part or public improvements. And those public improvements have been completed. The development agreements typically that are associated with the final plots typically don't address private infrastructure, private fences. So I don't think there's a mechanism in the development agreement to address that.

The landscape plan in the preliminary would have been where this would have been addressed, I believe.

Potentially, but I mean, I think if the Planning Commission thinks that a fence is warranted through the special reviews permit to mitigate any concerns, they could require it. It's not like a huge cost in terms of fencing and They would absorb it into probably just the general HOA maintenance items. I don't think it would be, would need to probably change any of the approved plans in any way. I don't see why we would.

Anyone want to make a motion or a motion to amend? Sure.

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

I think probably you mean north property line?

On the north property line, thank you.

Discussion?

Is that a second, Commissioner Salish?

I'll second, but discussion please.

uh yeah so we have a motion and a second we'll go into debate so the the question is uh effectively approving with condition that we provide or that the developer maintain through the life of the property the northwest and northeast fence that was presented so open to debate i believe

Okay, maker of the motion, I guess I get to go first. I think it's just to, you know, put up, as we're talking about putting a bow on the process, there's nothing else that captures it, okay? It was presented. There's nothing else that requires it. It should be part of what we do. That's what special use review does.

Thank you. Any other comments?

I will say, Chair, I'm raising my hand.

Yep. You're good.

This is difficult. I will say that this is something that is normally included in the plans. One of the previous applications, Birmingham sight lines, you know, those kinds of things. Basically, the lights going through. I am concerned if there is ever Dave Kuntz, Something that happens to that fence, where it is going to be completely on the. Dave Kuntz, On the neighbors to the north to replace. Dave Kuntz, I, I would. Dave Kuntz, lean towards agreeing with Commissioner shots.

Any other comments before we call the vote.

I would just say that I think it's important for us as a body to, first of all, be empathetic to what the development community has to go through. But I also think it's important to hold developers accountable for promises made. And ways to do that is to affix conditions to these approvals. So I support this.

Okay. Anybody want to roll call vote?

All right.

All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Well, that was the amending the resolution. I will move that we pass resolution P26-10 as amended.

Oh, I thought that's what we did. What was that?

I thought he said, well, I thought what he said was amending it, not.

oh sorry i think i missed it okay so now okay we didn't read it So we have a, you wanna make a motion to?

Yeah, the motion was to approve the resolution as amended. So I think the first motion that Commissioner made was to add a condition, or revise the proposed resolution to add a condition to the approval. That was approved by the body, so the motion now is the motion to approve the resolution with that condition added. Second.

All right. All right. We will do a voice vote. All in favor say aye. Aye. All those say no. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you. So our third item is 2026-321, a resolution of the Planning Commission of the Town of Erie recommending that the Town Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 6 and 11 of Title 10 of the Erie Municipal Code regarding landscaping. Time is now 7.51 PM. We'll turn it over to staff.

Hi, commissioners. Kelly Driscoll, deputy planning and development director. I'm here today to talk through some proposed changes to Title 10. These changes have to deal with turf and landscaping. Again, I'll give you a background, the specifics of the proposal, and then the criteria for your decision. Some recent changes to state law require that municipalities prohibit nonfunctional turf from being installed at certain properties. These are commercial, institutional, or industrial properties, properties within a common interest community, rights of way, parking lots, medians, or transportation corridors, and multifamily dwelling units with 12 or more units. State law does define functional turf as turf that's used to recreate, gather, that sort of thing. There's lots of examples in the state law of what that could be. And non-functional turf does include turf located in the right of way in a parking lot, median, or transportation corridor. The state law does carve out that native grass or grass hybridized for arid conditions would still be allowed on those applicable properties. So what you have before you today is a proposal that would prohibit the installation of native species non-functional turf and non-functional artificial turf on those applicable properties. It allows grass seed or sod that is native or has been hybridized for our arid conditions. There were several incorrect code section references that were cleaned up with this proposed change. And then we've updated and added definitions to better align with the state law. So as far as the criteria for your decision, these are outlined in Title 10-718. And they delineate that the amendment will promote public health, safety, and general welfare. It's consistent with the master plan and the purposes of the UDC and is necessary or desirable because of changing conditions, new planning concepts, or other social or economic conditions. A public notice is not required for planning commission. It's not a public hearing.

And a neighborhood meeting is not required for UDC changes.

It is scheduled to go to council on June 9 for their consideration of these amendments. We do recommend that you adopt Resolution 26-09, recommending that Town Council adopt the changes before you. And I'd be happy to answer any questions. And Elliot Schaefer, Deputy Town Attorney, is here as well.

Thank you for your presentation. Sure.

move to i guess the time is 7 55 p.m and again we'll start with two questions we'll go in opposite order are you happy to start yet or you want me to make you last sure uh i'm more than happy i have one uh and it's if we know that there's a problem uh or is this just aligning with legislation even though we really haven't experienced a lot of people proposing non-functional turf in erie

Oh, yeah. I mean, I think the problem is not necessarily the non-functionality of turf, but the type of turf that is installed tends to be that Kentucky bluegrass that needs a lot of water. And obviously, we live in a very arid climate. We're in the middle of drought so yeah it just does make sense to still allow people to put turf wherever they might want to but to restrict it to species that are better suited okay so i guess i'll take my second question which is this will impact development going forward it will change the character of what's being proposed um not necessarily there are plenty of turf options that look you know just as lush and attractive that that are better suited for our climate thank you

for this it doesn't seem I know there's been debate about the turf in a new development this doesn't really capture like a single family yard right there aren't restrictions it's just those applicable properties OK. So this is really just to comply with the state law? It's not really advancing?

Right. We are planning to look at the landscape code as a whole with the code update. And we'll be delving into that as far as other changes.

okay yeah thank you one quick question uh i know you need a permit from the town to do things in the right-of-way in the tree lawn when that permit is looked at do you include this type of review um it would uh going forward yeah yeah to ensure that they're not so then they have a place to catch it early yes okay thank you no questions commissioner salish

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

Not that I am aware of.

Recently? Town-owned property?

I'm not familiar with one.

It didn't have to do with turf.

On town-owned property?

It did not have to do with turf, I don't think. We had that one with town-owned property. It had to do with building. It was open. Yeah, it was open space, I think. Something with town on property we did a few weeks ago.

So the reason I bring this up is because I know that I think it is Compass Park. The initial design thoughts there were to put AstroTurf Would this prohibit the town's ability to do so?

No. I think what you're referring to, that would be considered functional AstroTurf, so that is allowed. Okay.

That's all. Thank you. Any other questions? Who would like to make a motion?

All right. I would move the approval of Resolution P26-09 as presented.

Second. Motion from Schatz and a second from Dreckman to approve a resolution of the Planning Commission of the Town of Erie recommendation that the Town Council adopt an ordinance amending Chapter 6 and 11 of Title 10 of the Erie Municipal Code regarding landscaping. Anybody want to request a roll call? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Motion passes unanimously.

All right.

Our final item is 2026.324, Discussion of Proposition 123, Fast Track. The time is now 8 p.m. This is more of a general open discussion in preparation for our joint session with Town Council on June 2nd. Just for background, Town Council removed affordable housing provisions in our UDC last year by the ordinance that was attached. During that process, because it was a UDC change, it came to Planning Commission. We had multiple meetings, discussions about this, and what we ultimately submitted, again, that was in our packet, was Resolution P2507. My understanding that wasn't presented to the town council during their discussion due to effectively what we did was deny with conditions. That's what I was informed by legal, whereas we are only allowed to approve or approve with conditions or deny. So they effectively treated it as a rejection. During that debate, we did, I think we had a really good discussion. We had two new members on the board and we are meeting in two weeks on June 2nd. So again, like I said, I want this to be an open forum so we can kind of come at this from a place where we're generally in agreement of the position of the board. I mean, obviously the town council will have their their opinions as well but i want to make sure that we're kind of a cohesive a group as much as we can be so before i open it just to note our joint session will also include a planning staff report on the requested comprehensive plan changes from the town council and an overview of the major work plan for the planning group, including the planning commission. So it'll be an exciting meeting for everyone who loves planning. So I'm happy to, you just want to speak on some thoughts on the affordable housing provision. I'm happy to call it in. Again, it's 8 o'clock, so let's see what we can do to not be here all night? Anyone have? Commissioner Booth?

I just have a question. I didn't catch what you said. The idea from tonight is to come up with some ideas or somewhat be a united front for that joint session?

Not necessarily, I guess. It was more of, I mean, ultimately the planning commission as a group will need to come to a decision. So maybe I misspoke. I think that's probably it.

and when you say a decision decision on different talking points or or maybe start out like um with that joint session i feel like it's going to be staff-led is that correct is it almost similar to like a study session but with conversation yes okay so i think really what i want to get here is that

least everyone has an opportunity when there are seven of us to talk about what's important to each of us in the planning commission. And then when there's 14 of us in a room with town council, that if you come up with something and I have an opportunity to speak and you have an opportunity to come up with it, we're all aware that this may come up. So I think it's to get kind of our thoughts on the matter of What we can do as we get to that large group. I don't want that to devolve into, I don't think it would be a yelling match.

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

Is that correct? No.

Do you mean the order of the meeting on the second?

So this is an informal discussion, paraphrasing. But in terms of what actually would be in front of the planning commission next, is it comprehensive plan changes if directed by the town council?

So town council did direct some changes on January 6th, and we've been working on those. We've been doing some community education on those. since those two your two bodies were going to be together we thought it would be a great time to give you an update on that as well but it will come back to this body for a recommendation that is the process but there's also the fast-track process which is not part of the comprehensive plan and that's one of the bigger concerns in some of our minds

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

So is the fast track process a UDC? What is it in terms of its existence within the planning process?

Right. Prop 123 and the state's interpretation of it has sort of evolved over time. Initially, there wasn't a whole lot of direction on what it might apply to. And it's really been narrowed down to just a handful of application types, some of which are already administrative. And what we've determined is there's actually no need to change the code for to comply, it would just be internal processes that would need to change. We'd kind of front load it with more pre-application meetings to work through those issues. What was removed in last year? Last year. Really, while it did have some administrative reviews, there were a lot of incentives as well, and so all of that was taken out of the code.

But in terms of, if I may, and thank you, Ms. Driscoll oriented Mr. Leif and I pretty well, because I now recall this conversation about Fast Track is providing an administrative review process for certain types of applications.

Not necessarily. What we've found is, so there's a handful of application types, like a site plan, a variance, a special review use, like you saw tonight, All of those, to some extent, require a public hearing. Site plans over 25,000 square feet come to you. And what we've worked out is that basically if somebody And it's all optional. A developer wanted to come and do affordable housing that meets the definition. Over half their units would have to be affordable and say they needed a special review use. So we would basically have as many pre-applications with that applicant as we needed to work through any issues so that when they made an official application, it's ready to go. And so that that really shrinks that front end time that we spend a lot of time with back and forth. So it would still come through public hearing, neighborhood meetings, all of that stuff.

Yeah.

And I believe one of the big concerns of

the application process when we last saw it was there was a concern that a large development with the minimum number of affordable housing units even if it was hundreds of acres could be administratively approved and in some readings of the language that was available that'd be a pretty Interesting way to go about it, but it was allowed. So that was part of one of our recommendations that was part of that resolution that we sent as something that we acknowledged and wanted to do. So I think that's, it captured a lot of that.

just a general question I know that there's funding tied to that it's my understanding that that funding has to be appropriated by the legislature and I'm wondering if now that we've completed a legislative session at the Capitol if we know if that funding was appropriated or if there's anything at risk for

And I have the details of that if you'd like. And full disclosure, I think most people here know, but not everybody does. I am also the board president of Habitat for Humanity of St. Vrain.

So I have a strong interest in affordable housing.

So there was a movement of funds initially, where initially there was $187.1 million for fiscal year 27, $199.5 for 28. and 210.7 for fiscal year 29. after the budget cuts that moved to 57.1 where a ton of money was removed from fiscal 27 there were no changes in 27 or 28 and 29. they then had an amendment 1313 which moved it so that all the money that was taken out 27 was then split equally between 27 28 and 29. And so there's $137.1 million available in the state. So it's a significant amount of money. And to be eligible for it, you must have somehow a fast track process.

And the deadline for that is what, November?

Something like that. Let me see if I have it in this email. No, I don't have it in this email. January 1. It was January? Yeah.

So effectively we need something by the end of the year.

Right, end of the year.

But what we've identified is there wouldn't be no changes necessary, unless you all felt the need to do that in council as well.

Process changes?

Yeah, it would just be a process change.

Just clarification.

Go ahead, Andrew. Go ahead, Commissioner Salish.

To what Mr. Driscoll said, you said there wouldn't be code changes necessary. It'd be process changes. Are you referring to what we previously had in there that was repealed? Or are you saying the current UDC as it sits right now is able to handle this?

The current UDC as it sits right now.

Okay, so just to clarify, I think you had listed some applications earlier. You said site plan, SRU, preliminary plat.

No, not preliminary plat.

Where are the application types that would be?

So you all are getting a little preview of the second, and I apologize, I will not be there, but you'll be in very capable hands. Sarah Nirmala, the director, and Josh Campbell, our senior strategic planner, will be there. So the application types that it applies to are site plan, special review use, variance, building permits, and architecture. That's it. So if they needed rezoning, it would go through all the same process.

previously what we had in place was above and beyond what is actually required correct for the direction that the state has now developed over time yeah there wasn't a lot of direction when it first um came out and yeah for your information for the newer commissioners erie was one of the leading

forces whatever you want to call it and did went above and beyond what in the end turned out to be required and so that's why this became revisited um i just think at risk of this becoming what it was last time it might be productive if the commissioners that

feel super passionately about this, maybe speak for a few minutes or just explain where they're coming from rather than, we don't have to do that. I just think that at risk of my first back from maternity leave four hour meeting you guys put me through, that might be a good way to start. And then maybe the ones that maybe don't have as strong of a feeling about it could ask questions.

My main question is because of the stipulation to get 123 money the town and the money actually goes to developers doesn't go to the town the town had to have a fast-track process in place of particularly, and the only time it really had to be enforced was if more than 50% of the properties were affordable by the definitions. And I would love to see that, but I'm not expecting any of those to happen, but we'll see. So even with that, we still don't need any code changes?

Correct.

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

I do not know. I was not involved. Yeah, I don't know.

Okay, thanks.

I think they wanted to incentivize.

It was the incentives.

It was the incentives, yeah.

Commissioner Smolich? Vice Chair Broaddus, are you referring to what was the purpose of the original ordinance?

Correct, that's what I was asking.

The original ordinance was created because It was understood at that time in order to be eligible to receive Prop 123 funding, you had to have this expedited process in place and there was ambiguity as to what that process meant. We had individual, we had applicants who were at annexation and rezoning that were potentially going to be trying to use that administrator review process because there was such ambiguity, but the UDC at the time through that ordinance allowed it where it would bypass preliminary platform, our understanding. And again, lots of ambiguity, but it was to be able to gain access to that funding if, and when it became available.

Okay. And that's still the case. So my question was why we thought we needed an ordinance then, but we don't think we need an ordinance now.

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

And I think building on that, I mean, Prop 123 came out, and like you said, you were on the forefront. Yep. As MJ Adams reported many times, it was hard to tell what was needed to get that funded. So we threw something out there.

We made that first gooey pancake, as she said.

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

So if there's no ordinance needed, and then we do this joint session, are we just going to talk about how we don't need an ordinance as a joint session?

That's my answer.

Apparently we're talking about comp plan changes. Yes.

That as well as some of the larger work plan items that you all will be seeing next year.

Mm-hmm.

So it might be pretty short on the code updates for Prop 123.

But there still probably has to be education from the staff to town council and planning commissioner on what the details really are.

Yeah, there'll be a lot of details in the staff report. And then, yeah, of course, opportunity for questions and answers.

Okay.

I had just a question. I've heard the term affordable housing with many definitions, and I'm just wondering where is it defined and what is the definition?

So that is the only piece that remained in the code change that got repealed. So it is in our definitions in the UDC. I can send that to you, point you to it. And then the state defines it slightly differently, of course. So that's a point of exploration with the state as far as how we would align ours with that.

And how does our UDC define that?

It's in chapter 11.

It is, yes.

Let me just, 10, 3, or sorry, 10, 11, 3 terms defined. It's a paragraph of the affordable housing project, a development in which 12% or more of the total residential units will be restricted by a recorded deed restriction in a form approved by the town as follows. A, for ownership units, initial occupancy shall be restricted to households with incomes at or below 120% of AMI. And B, for rental units, occupancy shall be restricted to households with incomes at or below 80% of AMI.

So AMI is the Area Median Income. And it's different from Weld County and Boulder County, and so we have our own uniqueness in that we cross counties. And how do we deal with that? That's a staff question.

Yeah, we use boulders.

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

And I do not want to start any conversation with the assumption that I'm passionate about this topic. I think it's an important topic. But I am curious. If anyone reacted to the – it was particularly explicit in the private applicant's neighborhood meeting notes. They made it prominent that he felt like Erie Junction had distorted the market and was going to drive him into bankruptcy. I mean, there's some experience here that that inflated Boulder County AMI allows developers, as you point out, to take money that they're not really helping the people that we would like to help. And I'm just curious if the complexity of this issue is something we will have to struggle with. I mean, or is passion the answer? I mean, since you want to have a philosophical conversation, there it is.

If you have six hours, you can look at the past meetings.

Well, and I'll just add, so the Cheeseman Residences is the affordable housing project, not Erie Junction.

Sorry.

Yeah, so I believe we're at 18 or 19 units sold. The average AMI is around 80%, and it does tend to be service workers, teachers, first responders.

But the average is you just barely qualify, and that's who's buying them.

And I would I would argue though, too. I mean, from a developer standpoint, if 18% have sold, I don't know if using Boulder County for a higher number is at risk of us developing a bunch of these projects, because someone coming in is, in my opinion, working real estate, not as a planning commissioner is just if, if 18 or 19% of sold, I don't It wasn't percent. It was units. I mean, units. I'm sorry. But it is a percent, though, right? Like, it's a, I mean. It's around half.

It's over half, right?

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

housing project.

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

It's a ceiling, not a floor. So it allows developers to do things to build more expensive housing than they would if we used the Weld County numbers. And so my understanding of what we found with people applying for Cheeseman is often they're either just too high or they're just too low. And so the goal at the time of Cheeseman was as a first project and then we would be able to do things at lower costs moving down. Or moving ahead, I guess I should say. But to have the price points relatively and with inflation and stuff geared in. come to get to people at lower, because Cheeseman was 90 to 120 was the target, I thought, for AMI, 90 to 120% of AMI.

It was what's in code, up to 120 for ownership.

And the thought was later on we could maybe do things lower. I know Habitat couldn't bid on Cheeseman because it was too high of an AMI. And so there's a lot of population out there that cannot afford that. I understand what you're saying about maybe if we use Weld County, it would force it to be even lower, but that would also significantly reduce the developers.

It was a compromise when it came up.

Any other thoughts? Commissioner Salish, I don't know if you have a hand up.

Yeah. I don't know if staff or Vice Chair Broadus would know this one, but the funding that is available, from my understanding, a portion of this was guaranteed funding. The other portion was basically an excess of the TABR reserves, essentially, within that limit. Do we know, since 60% of it is administered by CHAFA, 40% is administered by DOLA, what funding is available in terms of if it's that chaff aside or the dola side that is actually able to receive funding for the upcoming year?

I don't know for sure. My understanding is this was the total pot. So I don't really know the answer to your question.

Okay. First step, if we could find that one out, because from my understanding, there was supposed to be a guaranteed for the chaff aside, and the dole aside was basically the one that could get left out, if we could find out what that split is, because there are some, potentially some ways that we as the municipality could also go for grants if we are Prop 123 compliant as well. It's not solely on the developer.

The DOLA funding is there. What got eliminated with the balancing of the budget was the OEDIT, Affordable Housing Finance Fund, which is land banking. DOLA, Affordable Housing Support Fund, which does down payment and rental assistance, and then the DOLA local planning capacity grants are intact.

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

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

And there's also money available from the state. I think there's still money for one more iteration if we need funding to create the process. There was some funding available from the state to help offset the costs for developing the process.

Yeah, the local planning capacity grants.

So Erie could get some money out of that. We missed the last deadline. It was in April.

Um, or just for, um, I apologize. I'm working off an iPad and it just, uh, locked me out. So I got to enter this in. Um, the last time we met, um, it talked about this, the, uh, that resolution that went to council, but they could not, um, review because it was a, um, recommendation for denial with conditions. It was, The second part of that was the town council tasked the planning commission to work with town staff and council to develop a UDC amendment that addresses the concerns identified in one or more joint study sessions with town council and the planning commission. This shall include creating an application process which is Prop 123 compliant, which allows town council the necessary time to receive and review the community-wide survey results, and which allows staff time to work with the DOLA consultant to address outstanding questions. I know the town-wide survey was completed. This joint study session is now happening. Has staff received all the answers necessary to, make these determinations in conversations with the Dole consultant that I understand was working with a dozen or so different communities?

Yes. Yes. And there will be information presented on what others in the region are doing as well.

Okay. My question would be, does it, hurt to have a UDC item in there that is specific to the fast track prop 123 compliance that specifically outlines which specific applications can go through that as well as a you know consult the user guide and basically we created another user guide that is applicable solely for these prop one two three compliant applications that that is a possibility yeah Because there was a lot of ambiguity at first. I don't think we want to get into ambiguity potentially down the line. I would say if we want to address this and codify it, figure out a way in terms of what the language is to codify it, but point to that user guide so that user guide can be modified at any point.

So what some of the other, you guys are really getting a preview. I just have to say. What some of the other municipalities have done is adopt resolutions outlining what that internal process change looks like instead of going through their code and making changes like that. So yeah, it's an option. But the discussion is also, you know, Erie made this initial commitment, three-year commitment. We've actually met that with the Cheeseman Residences Project. And, you know, do we want to basically re-up that? What do we want to do? So, yeah, that's part of the discussion on the second piece.

as in percentage or number of units that we are committing just like we did back in 2023 i think it was correct it has to do with a percent over your current baseline wasn't it like seven units or something like that 10 units it was 15.

what would what do we have to bump it up by per state statute yeah um interestingly there were some recent bills in this legislature haven't haven't been signed yet so we're still awaiting guidance on that um met with dola on tuesday and um in june sometime we will know more but probably not june 2nd but probably not june yeah unfortunately

Any final thoughts before I close it out? Just one question.

You kind of referenced the fact that the state had a potentially different definition of affordable housing. What is that?

It is...

Maybe make it a yes or no just while you're finding it. Is it income-based or is it another qualifier entirely?

It is, it relates to AMI, yeah. 60% or lower AMI for rental, 100% or lower for owner-occupied.

20%. County-specific?

I'm sorry?

Is it county-specific?

Yeah, that's usually how AMI is established.

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

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

That's something to explore with DOLA further, what that might look like, yeah.

I recall the state was a ceiling, or a floor, anyway. we can make it slightly different in the state.

Does home rule come into that?

That's a good question.

it wouldn't in this situation because this is really the eligibility of state dollars so the the state is conditioning the eligibility of home rule and statutory municipalities on meeting certain requirements so the town could fund it with whatever money we want and set whatever we want sure to get state dollars we have to do that okay yeah so it's not really this town funding it right it's the state funding it yeah again the money doesn't go even go through this town it goes to the developer okay so in 2023

We were all asked to meet these commitments. And now are they asking us to look at those numbers again? Or is that all up to each municipality?

Every municipality can decide if they want to commit again and for how long.

It's every three years you have to recommit. Like Longmont didn't get money last year or this year. because they didn't meet the target. So you have to both commit and meet your target. And the target is, again, based on a percentage above what you currently have. And Erie is, for better or worse, very low right now. Increased significantly by, excuse me.

I think we'll have a good discussion. I think we know a little bit more. I'm looking forward to Sarah and Josh's commentary.

time is now 8 35 p.m and we've concluded general business we'll move to staff reports no specific agendas do you have anything for us um yeah i just wanted to introduce everyone jaime medina has joined us he's our new planning technician shadowing melinda today um and then just another reminder of three meetings back to back i am so sorry June 1st, the onboarding and CIRSA training, and then June 2nd, the joint session with council, and June 3rd is a regular meeting. That one, we don't have any public hearings on, and there's only a couple of items, so hopefully it'll be kind of short.

Yeah.

Yeah, I think the advanced agenda is, what's the chair election and something? Mm-hmm.

I just had it open. The annual report. Oh, yeah. That's coming up in July.

So.

That's it.

All right. Time is now 8.36 p.m., and we'll go to Commissioner reports for discussion. Commissioner Sawish in the sky.

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

Sure. Go enjoy your vacation. Yeah.

Enjoy being out. Any other reports?

I have no report. I hope you enjoyed the virtual cookies. And thank you to the town for a little introductory dinner we had, and I appreciate meeting with everyone.

Welcome the new members again. And a reminder, it's passed for completing the security training.

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

Yes. Yeah. I'm assuming the new members are going to get that as well.

Yeah, you're not past it.

Yeah.

And I think for me, you covered that. Again, welcome. And looking forward to the first week of June. A lot of time together. Thanks. All right. That concludes all items on our agenda.

It's not up for debate. Motion to adjourn. Second.

All right. Time is now 8.38 p.m., and we are adjourned.