Town Council - Regular Meeting

Recording in progress.

Town council meeting on 04/28/2026. Will you please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance? K. Will the town clerk please take roll?

Council member Pessimarelli?

Present.

Council member Mortolero? Here. Council member Hoback?

Here.

Council member O'Connor?

Here.

Mayor Pro Tem Bell?

Here.

Council member Baer? Present. And mayor Moore? Here. Mayor Yokorum?

Alright. Before I ask for approval of the agenda, a couple just announcements on the agenda. First off, we do have an executive session tonight. It has nothing to do with oil and gas. I just want to put that out into the into the the air at this point. Second, we've added two items to our agenda on an ongoing basis and that is for the town manager to have an opportunity at the end of the meeting to address this on any items that may be pertinent and the same for our town attorney. So those will be standing items going forward. Alright. And then I'm gonna ask for a little flexibility in the agenda tonight. We have an item on the general business.

It's the first item. It's a proclamation, public safety for all residents of the town of Erie. We are waiting for a translator. So And what I'd like to do is just have the flexibility to work that in when the translator arrives. Alright. With that, I'll see if there's a

motion to

approve the agenda.

Can you make that part

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

Okay. So I'll see if there's a motion to approve the agenda with the flexibility Second. To Alright. Perfect.

Who is the who is the first?

Council member Hoback.

Okay.

Sure. Alright. All in favor, aye. Aye. All opposed say no. All right. We have an agenda. We have a lot of items on the consent agenda tonight. So bear with me. First item is twenty twenty six two eighty nine the approval at the 04/14/2026 town council meeting minutes.

Second item is twenty twenty six three zero nine approval of the 04/21/2026 town council special meeting minutes. Next item is twenty twenty six twenty four mental health awareness month proclamation sponsored by council members mayor Pro Tem Bell and council member O'Connor. Next item is twenty twenty six two thirty six older Americans month proclamation sponsored by council members Emily Bear and Brian O'Connor. Next item is twenty twenty six two ninety proclamation fifty seventh Annual Professional Municipal Clerks Week, May 2026 sponsored by Council O'Connor. Next item is 2020 six-two forty three, Economic Development Week proclamation sponsored by Councilmember O'Connor.

Next item is twenty twenty six-104A, a resolution of the Town Council of the Towne area approving an agreement for professional services with Friesen Nichols for a water strategic plan update. Next item is 2020 six-one 184, a resolution of the town council of the town area appointing members to the Board of Adjustment. Item twenty twenty six two fifty four a, resolution of the Town Council of Town of Erie approving a license agreement with the City of Lafayette for a temporary detour of the Coal Creek Regional Trail. Item twenty twenty six two fifty seven, a resolution of the town council of the Town of Erie approving a third amendment to the construction contract with A and M Renovations LLC for the Schofield Farm Barn Rehabilitation. Item twenty twenty six two sixty one, a resolution the Town Council of

approving an agreement for the transfer of federal entitlement funds from the Erie Municipal Airport to Steamboat Springs Bob Adams Field. Item twenty twenty six-two 62, an ordinance of the Town Council of Town

Town of Erie approving a permanent easement agreement between Anderson South Farm LLC terminating an existing easement and granting a replacement easement. Next item is twenty twenty six-two 63 an ordinance of the Town Council of of Erie approving a permanent easement agreement between far from working LLLP to terminate an existing easement and grant a replacement easement. Item twenty twenty six-two 75 a resolution

the Town Council

Council of of Town the Town Of Of Erie appointing Elizabeth Barrajas as Assistant Municipal Judge of the Erie Municipal Court. Item twenty twenty six-two 77, an ordinance of the Town Council of Town of Erie adopting and amending the Town's purchasing policy. Item twenty-twenty six-two 86 the resolution of the Town Council of Town of Erie approving a First Amendment to agreement for professional services with Foxtel Transportation Group LLC for on call multimodal transportation and traffic planning services. And the last consent agenda item tonight is twenty twenty 87 a resolution of the Town Council of the Town of Erie approving a first amendment to agreement for professional services with DJNA LLC for on call multimodal transportation and traffic planning services. Do I have a motion to approve the consent agenda?

So I think we have a motion by the mayor pro tem. Second. And a second by councilmember Mortalero. All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Alright. The motion carries. We'll move on to public comment. This is a public comment for anything not on the agenda and so we do have a public hearing tonight. If you're here for the public hearing this would not be the time for public comment. This is the time for any other topics. And I'm seeing if there's anybody

signed up.

So I don't have anybody signed up for public comment. Most everybody has signed up for a public hearing.

Okay. Let me just ask is there anybody in the audience that would like to address this on anything that is not a public hearing tonight? Yes, sir. If you'd like to come to the podium and just state your name and location, whether you're an Erie resident or not.

My name is Diego. I live here in Erie. I wanted to talk about the the Caldwell Reservoir and the recent news that I just made and just talking about future the future of our water here because we were certain we just recently were on a water restriction, so I could tell that we were probably banking on this reservoir coming online very shortly. And just wanted to understand how we were gonna approach that.

Okay. And I didn't read my script, but this isn't a time where we can do q and a. But for the record Yeah. It's on there.

I just wanted to talk about it.

Yeah.

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

No

problem. But we will be addressing our water situation. I will say for everybody, the the emergency water don't turn your sprinklers on message that went out actually had nothing to do with our ongoing water. It had everything to do with the fact that we didn't have our summer allocation yet. And so people were turning their sprinklers on in March. And the amount of water that was being used was a lot. And we were scared we weren't going to actually have enough water for normal purposes. That time has passed. We have our summer allocations, and that restriction was lifted. We're going move on.

Thank you. Okay. We are going to skip the proclamation for now, but we'll come back to it as soon as the translator is here. So we'll move on to item twenty twenty six two sixty, a public hearing, a resolution of the town council of town at Erie providing for the supplemental appropriation of money to various funds for the 2026 budget year. With that, I'll turn it over to Sarah Hancock, our director of finance. And the public hearing is officially open.

Good evening, mayor and council. I'm Sarah Hancock. I'm your director of finance. I am here alone this evening as Cassie is a little under the weather. So I'll be driving this to the best of my ability without her here.

Would like to share that we also have all of our directors here to answer questions on anything that we'll be adding tonight. Let me lock my computer and get started here. So this year, as I mentioned at our last supplemental, we split out our rollover supplementals with our new appropriations. So what we're bringing tonight are additional appropriations to be added to the budget that are not rollovers from the prior year. We're gonna go through our change request summary, the operating and capital requests, and then the offsetting grant revenue that are associated with the majority of these requests.

And then we'll take a look at our fund balance summary, our general fund forecast, and then also our capital improvement forecast. So I can actually say with complete confidence that this is the first time I've ever brought a supplemental change request summary with a negative number. We are actually reducing the overall budget for the town by 39,763,944. This is due primarily to de appropriating the funds for the water treatment plant, and the majority of that funding was cash going back into the water fund. There was also a part of that that was planned to be bond funded, that's why you won't see a one for one in that change.

But overall, we are reducing the town's budget. There's primarily some new operating in the general fund, and then many of the other projects that you'll see are offset by grant revenues. So for new operating requests this year, we are looking at two additional attorney positions. This is primarily to right size the attorney's office that we now have in house. I would also like to note that this will very likely have offsetting revenues in future years simply because we would be using in house counsel rather than outsourcing our counsel.

We also have appropriations for our Erie B, which you've probably seen driving around town. We also have some reimbursements with Boulder County we're appropriating, as well as street light standards and specs. We have some grants funding that is coming in and the associated expense for our therapeutic recreation program. We also have some consultation services that are needed for our appraisals for our Trails and Natural Areas Fund, and also some appropriations related to our water fund, primarily the City Of Boulder water lease, but also rightsizing a water resource manager that needed to be graded properly in order for us to actually recruit for that position. For capital requests, these are primarily related to ongoing projects that have either changed in scope or we've seen some needs.

We have some shelters at our open space. We also have the barn rehabilitation at Schofield Farm, as well as the acquisition of Coal Miner Park. We have some trail connectors, as well as the reduction of our deferral of the Coal Creek Rates Trail, which actually offsets the barn rehabilitation at Schofield. Also have the excuse me, need to scroll yet. The Public Improvement Impact Fund also has a reduction to the Page property.

That is just pulling that funding out from the appropriation and allowing it to be freely used for other projects. We do have some funding going into the Erie Community Center addition and the Erie Community Park, and then also some funding for the Lost Building. And then finally, in the Water Fund, this is where you see that very large $161,000,000 de appropriation, as well as a de appropriation for the Well project. And then in other funds, we do have some Schofield site improvements in the Parks Improvement Impact Fund as well, and as well as our pavement maintenance project for the airport, and then also some trees that will need to be purchased for the Schofield site. So what's important here is a lot of these do have offsetting revenue.

As you can see, we're going to be receiving in the general fund our Erie B FlexRide grant, our recreation grant for the therapeutic program, we have our Sunset Area Plan, and the Schofield Farm grant that's coming in from the Parks Improvement Impact Fund. We also have our solar at the North Water Reclamation Facility that has come well as our airport funding to upgrade and relocate our vault building, as well as some pavement maintenance. And then here is our fund balance summary. I have to caveat once again that we center of our audit right now, so the beginning fund balances are still the previous year's fund balances. So those will be updated.

My hope is in the next two to three weeks, and I am happy to send out an updated version of this once those are finalized. But until the ACRA is complete, I won't have those numbers. I will also state that that's why you'll see that the Fleet and Equipment Acquisition Fund is negative. That $5.00 9 is actually going to be offset by a transfer from the general fund, which is typical through the end of the year. And we changed this up a little bit to make it a little easier to see the sources and uses for the general fund.

Just want to note here that our general fund beginning balance at this point is right around 33,000,000. We have our revenues and our supplemental revenues that are increasing that, and then we have our operating and debt expenditures and our uses, and the supplemental requests in the general fund are just slightly higher than the supplemental revenues. We do have our transfer to the CIF, and then ending fund balance is at 23,500,000 with non spendable and spendable fund balance allowing us to have an unassigned fund balance of 6.1. So this is our fund balance forecast. At this point, it looks about the same as what we've previously seen.

Of course, as we get closer to 2029, 2030, we'll have to continue to have prioritization conversations around how we balance the budget. But in general, we are still seeing pretty flattening of some of our revenues, however, a consistent ability to continue to meet our debt demands, our operating, and our reserves. Reserves. And the infamous general CIF forecast, again, this one is funded up through 2028, and then we do see a drop off in funding. Again, these are large projects that past 2026 are not technically funded, so we'll continue to have prioritization conversations as we get closer to the initiation of those projects.

And so with that, I am happy to answer any questions that you have. And again, we have directors here to speak about specific projects if you have more detailed questions.

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

Seeing that.

We

don't have anybody signed up.

Alright. Then I will I'm sorry. Okay. Yep. Come on up.

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

My name is Claire Scott. I am an Erie resident. So I wasn't planning to speak but looking at the slides I have a question. And since this is on the agenda, I think you can answer questions. Correct?

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

Okay. So I noticed, there was a reduction in planned budget for the page property. Can you speak to why that's being reduced by over $1,000,000?

Okay. We're going to bring it back to counsel. And we'll ask our questions.

Can I just say I'm very excited? That is the first time we've gotten public comment on

the budget since I've been here. And I'm very excited. So thank you so much.

You made our year. Congratulations.

Alright. I'll bring it back to council for questions. Councilor Hoebeck.

Oh, director Hannecock. What was just asked? Yes.

I'm happy to answer that to the best of my ability, but I might have to defer. My understanding was that that was just reducing the funds to make them available for projects that may be associated with but weren't tied up in one appropriation. So with that, I'm going to allow David to speak a little bit more pointed at that. Thank you.

Good evening, counsel. David Pasic, public works director. The Public Facilities Impact Fund had money budgeted with the plan that we were still waiting on council's direction on whether or not we were gonna proceed with the plan design for a parks and open space facility at the Page property. That's what that money was budgeted for with the direction from a study session from the previous year. We decided that or the direction that we received was that that was not going to have support to move forward.

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

Alright.

Actually, on that note, I can just pull this right up here because you can see them offsetting right there. So you'll see that that reduction on the page property, and then the Erie Community Center and Park and Laws are right there. Those are the ones that

are reappropriating. Okay.

Councilor Morin Hoback, you still have the floor.

Yeah, thank you. Just one other question. On the water fund, the $222,000 for the Boulder lease, city of Boulder, water lease, is that a new lease? Is that an increase to an existing lease?

Believe that's an increase to our existing lease, but I'd have to defer to Todd on that. I don't think he's in here at the moment, but I'm happy to get that information for you.

Okay. Yeah.

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

As far as you know, it's just an increase in price or more water or

I believe we renew the lease periodically. So let me check with him,

and we

can Okay.

I can find that answer while we're

going around.

That's all. Thank you.

Of course.

Okay. Council member Baer.

Thank you. Congratulations on your first public comment. Exciting.

Thank you.

I was curious if you could kind of walk us through the general forecast slide, I think that that one has caused some alarm in the community before. So I just wanted to

Yes, absolutely. Sure.

I think one of the biggest distinctions with the CIF forecast slide is that this is the general fund capital improvement fund that is solely funded by the transfer from the general fund when we have excess fund balance available for that purpose. So it doesn't actually represent the entire capital improvement plan, which encompasses the utilities funds, all of our impact funds. So those are many, many capital projects that are fully funded or have fund balance available for future projects. So the CIF forecast, however, is really dependent on that available fund balance that we transfer over for mostly at this point maintenance projects. The majority of what's in the general CIF at this point is our pavement maintenance, our concrete maintenance, and then maintenance for a lot of our recreations and parks properties.

So what you'll see there are some planned projects in 2027 and 2028 that may or may not come to fruition simply because of timing availability. But the projects that are currently funded in there are those primary maintenance projects. So I think it is important to look at and say, hey, obviously the things we have planned in the future are not, we are not able to do them with what we know we will have to transfer. That said, things always change, projects always change, and we have to also look at the future plan and make prioritization decisions and understand that some of the things that are in 2028 and beyond may not ever happen and could offset some of that negative balance. I'll also say that part of the process of the budget is understanding that once we have the operating budget balanced, if we have needs in the CIF, we do have to consider if there are other areas in the operating budget that need to be reduced or reconsidered and prioritized if we have a capital project that is a critical need.

And that's part of the trade off of the structure of how we currently have the CIF funded from the general fund, is having to consider operating and capital in kind of a tandem and trade off conversation with priorities. So I hope that that helps. I know that it's a little daunting to see the line go below. That's never my favorite either. But to that represent the entire capital improvement plan for the town. And for the most part, we have a very strong plan with lots of funding sources that are quite diverse that are able to fund the majority of our projects.

Thank you. My only other question was about the IDD grant expense was 36,000. I assume that's like matching funds?

Yes. So my understanding is that that is the appropriation for the expenditures associated. There is excess revenue, I think, coming in from the grant, but that might be offsetting current expenditures. So I would have to defer to Charlene on that. But yes, generally, it's a one for one. So it might be that it's offsetting expenditures that are already appropriated.

Okay. Okay. That was it for me. Okay.

Alright. Councilmember Mortolero. Thank you.

Thank you, Sarah, for putting this together. Always appreciate it. The your 275,000 for Erie B, is that offset by the 740,000 grant that we we got?

That's correct.

And and shout out to our folks who who go after these grants. They've done a great job. Both Schofield and Erie Beat are very large grants that were going to help us out nicely. From what I hear, they had seven riders on the first day and 40 riders by the fourth day. So it's taken off. So that that's great. Other question was on the trail connectivity, I believe it's the Allen Allen Farm Trail and Compass Trail, and it adds up to 533. That's new to that's in addition to what we had put in the 2026?

Yes. That's in addition to.

Okay. And do you know how it breaks out between the two?

I'm not sure, but I believe Charlene's back here for Luke Bullener, who's not here tonight. And I believe she has details about what parts of what trail encompass that.

Thank you.

Evening, counsel. Charlene Laroy, Business Services Division Manager for Parks and Recreation. It breaks down $110,000 of that was actually money that was in the 2025 budget that was not used, so it went back to fund balance. And that will be used for Compass Trail Connection. And then the $423,000 is additional for Allen Farms. We just got 90% design, and it was more than we thought. And so to finish that off or get that going,

Okay. Yeah. Thank you. As remember the compass being in in the 2026. And so so that helps clear

it up.

Yep. You're welcome.

Appreciate it. Thank you, Shalini.

Councilmember Mortillary. Oh, that's so far. You're alright. Thanks.

I'm sorry. No. That's okay.

Didn't Mayor, I I will say that director Fessenden is here now if you'd like the other question answered.

Just throw him right in the fire.

Thank you, Todd. Todd, just to recap, the question is about the Boulder Water lease. If you could just explain why that's different from our prior leases.

Okay. Yeah, thanks. Sorry I'm late here. Todd Fessenin, Utilities Director. So the Boulder Water lease is a ten year lease, and we activated it this year. So we can lease water that Boulder is currently storing in Boulder Reservoir. And it's three seventy acre feet. And so that's a backup supply for us. And we can call on that water we can carry it carry it over by a year if we need to as well.

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

It was I think the terms were negotiated before the budget was done again and the cost of the lease.

Great. Thank you. Mayor Proton? Thank

you. So going back a second to the general fund balance forecast and the CIF forecast. So do we have an idea of where we've had multiple rollovers of an item that carried over multiple years? And then is that maybe compounding our problem with

Yes. It's a great question. Think that when we see something that's rolled over more than two or three years, I know that we do ask the question of what's going on with this project, is it escalating costs, is it delay? Previously we had a practice of budgeting the entire project at the time of the year that we planned to begin it. We've gotten into a little bit better of a practice of splitting that up over time.

So we're seeing less of that, frankly. Why you've seen the rollovers decline over the last few years. We've gotten a little bit better about spacing those out and understanding how much we actually need in the current year. But I've always explained that the way rollovers work, when you pull them out and then you kind of set them on top, they're like a bouncing ball. And it can sometimes, in the middle of the year, inflate your appropriation slightly, and then it'll drop back down because then you're unbalanced, you're pulling So it back it feels a little complicated and daunting sometimes, but it truly is just you're pulling it back out of the fund balance and reappropriating it.

It doesn't actually impact the fund balance over time as long as we're not appropriating more in our supplementals and our budget process than we have available in fund balance. I hope that makes sense. Yep, yep. Perfectly, I think I said, just imagine your rollovers are your little bouncing ball over the top that are kind of always there and ready to be appropriated.

And then it's hard to imagine because it feels like 2026 just started and yet we're almost six months into the year. So when we get into the latter half of the year, we start looking at '27. I guess I remember in '24 looking at the '25 budget, we really looked at OpEx and really kind of pared down on that. Is that maybe something we're going to have to look at this year to maybe that will help in some of the out years?

That is definitely something we're considering for this year, as as many of you know. We have a lot of geopolitical issues in the world. We have sales tax that is, while still growing, is flattening. These are just the realities of the economy right now. And so because we're watching those things very closely, we do plan to bring to the council what we did last year, which are what we believe are good revenue assumptions.

I would love to have Walt Kind come and talk about what he has seen in the economy. I actually got to see him last week at a conference, and we're using a lot of that information right now to build out those assumptions. So all of that to say absolutely we will be having to approach the budget very fiscally mindful this year, and we do plan to start from that place. And we'll certainly update you as we go along the process. And of course, we'll have a lot more information when the study session comes up.

Sure. Thank you. Of course.

That's all I got. All right. Councilmember O'Connor?

Thank you. Just one question. Regarding the grant funding, have all those come in? Or okay. That would I just was Yes.

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

Okay.

Yeah. Thanks.

Okay. Councilwoman Petz from Alley. Yeah.

On the spring supplemental general fund, there are two line items for unbalances. One is non spendable and spendable.

I gotcha.

What are This spendable

one right here?

Yeah.

Okay.

So what are the categories? Like, What is spendable and what is not?

That's a great question. So our non spendable fund balance are our TABOR reserves. So our required, we cannot spend those down, we have to keep those available. And then our spendable fund balance is what's truly available after that TABER requirements of keeping those reserves in place, which is approximately 3%. It changes every year kind of based on the calculation that the state provides us.

Now the spendable fund balance is technically what you have available to you before you have any of your code requirements for fund balance. So in our case, the minimum required fund balance is actually about 14,000,000 because we have two reserves that we keep in place, a contingency and an emergency fund. Those I believe are at 1115%, give or take a percentage or two, and that's why you see that. So technically, while we are able to spend it, it is restricted to the council's authority to free it up. And that's where you actually end up with that unassigned fund balance, because we go ahead and keep that minimum required fund balance safe and secure for emergencies or when the council feels that they need to release those funds for use.

So does it include the COPS payments that we have?

That's a great question. That's actually up in our uses in our operating and debt expenditures. So under that 64,000,000, that's where you'll find all of our debt expenditures, and those are accounted for. And we do keep those in the forecast in perpetuity as a component of our sources and uses.

Thank you.

You're very welcome.

All right, if you can go back to the CIF Absolutely. Fund. I just want to give a little context around what we're talking about when we talk about capital improvements that could be coming and that we will need to prioritize because we don't have enough money to do it all now. So I think about the rec center expansion and remodel. And right now, we are actually testing, if you will, the community's desire to actually increase our sales tax to possibly cover that cost.

So that'd be a great example of raising taxes in order to cover one of those costs. We've spoken about a second rec center, performing arts center, senior center. Too early to even know everything that would encompass, but the money would have to come somewhere to fund that. We've spoken about a North South Road connector, possibly Airport Drive connecting to County Line Road. We have a study session coming up on that to help staff with direction and whether we want to do something there or not.

But that also encompasses other road construction that may not be funded otherwise. Right now they're at Arapahoe And 111th. There's turn lanes being put in. That's the intersection that backs up. So when people are coming into Erie off of Arapahoe and 287, the goal is to get that fixed so you get better traffic flow.

But that had to be paid for through some type of capital coming in. The FBO, the fixed base operations out at the airport, that building, I think we've had in public comments that it's pretty much beyond its useful life. And at some point, we've got to do something out at the airport for the the operations of the airport. And then maybe the biggest one on here, maybe it's not the biggest, maybe the second rec center would be bigger, I don't know. But the Leon A.

World Service Center, which is where public works and parks operate out of. You can't double the size of your town and double it again and still expect us to operate in the facilities we have. So at some point that's going to have to be expanded. And then so I think about, well how do you pay for that? There's really three ways that I'm aware of. There may be some others. You either raise taxes. That could be property taxes or sales taxes. You could reduce services. So I think that's what the mayor pro tem was talking about somewhat by actually cutting services.

And you're cutting operational expenses that way so that you can use the money for capital improvement. I don't think most of us want to do that. That changes the feel of Erie. And I think of all the parks and recs and all the fun stuff that we do. That's part of the small town feeling. So that's if we ever went down that path, there'd have to be some serious reasons, I think, for all of us to to consider that. Microphone.

I can't

do that. Yep. Sorry. I'll I'll bring it closer. Is that better? Alright. Sorry about that. Or and then the last item is that we find other sources of funding. Right? Grants, you know, the state, the feds, to help us, which they have over time in other situations. So even though that graph that is up looks pretty dire, I think we have tools in the toolbox and we'll get to the point where we can talk

about, okay, what are the

priorities and then what are we going to do in chunks time. Alright with that I will close the public hearing and I'll see if there's a motion to approve resolution twenty six zero ninety.

Move to approve.

Second.

We have a motion and a second. And did you get the second? Mhmm. Okay. Any further discussion? All in favor say aye. Aye. All opposed say no. Alright. The supplemental budget is approved.

Thank you so much. I appreciate it everyone.

Thank you.

Alright. Thank you. Alright. I think our translator is here. Is that right?

So Mary Moore. Great. Mary Moore, if we could just take a few minutes for her to set up. I'm not sure if we have anybody who needs translation services.

You want me to just make an announcement I in

think she's raising her hand. Somebody is. It just took a few seconds for her to set up. So I don't know if we wanna take a little break while she sets up.

Yes. Are you are you thinking public comment on this particular item?

No. She's gonna translate the proclamation.

Yes. Okay. We're off.

And she'll be simultaneously translating the meeting

for Okay.

Okay. And maybe we could turn up the the volume as well. There's a a balance there, but I appreciate everybody letting us know when you can't hear.

Can I just take an announcement?

Do you have a

little device? Yeah. Why don't you come use this?

Yeah. If you could use one of the microphones.

Thank you.

Alright. And as we take a pause here for the anybody who's maybe watching at home or listening at home Mhmm. We're just getting translation services set up and then we'll start again. I'm sorry? Can

I use sign real quickly just to let people know

that Sure?

What they need?

Yeah. Absolutely. Hi.

My name is Laura. I'm sorry that we couldn't find an ASL interpreter. I know a little ASL. So if you want, you can

Are you good? Alright. We are gonna move on to item 2026301, proclamation public safety for all residents of the town of Erie. It's sponsored by myself and all of the council tonight. The proclamation is a public safety for all residents of the town of Erie.

Whereas the town of Erie is committed to upholding the safety, dignity and well-being of all residents including families who may experience fear or uncertainty related to federal immigration activity. And whereas the town recognizes the recent events have caused heightened concern among community members particularly families of color who have expressed fear for their safety and stability. And whereas the Tatana Eerie affirms that all residents regardless of background language or immigration status deserve to feel safe accessing schools, parks, public services and community spaces. And whereas the Erie Police Department and town leadership remain committed to practices that prioritize community trust, safety and transparency and do not engage in civil immigration enforcement activities. And whereas the public trust is strengthened when local government communities communicates clearly about its role, its limitations and its commitments to the people it serves.

And whereas the town of Erie seeks to foster a community where every resident feels seen, valued and protected and where fear does not prevent families from participating fully in civic life. Now therefore, the mayor and town council of the Town Of Erie do hereby proclaim the town's commitment to acknowledge the fear expressed by families in our community regarding immigration related activity, affirm the town's role in promoting safety, stability, and access to public services for all residents, and to communicate transparently about town policies and practices that support community trust and uphold the constitutional rights of every person living within the town Of Erie. Be it further resolved that the Town of Erie will continue working with community partners, residents and local organizations to ensure all families feel safe, supported and able to thrive dated this April 2026. Thank you. All right.

We're going to move on to our next item which is our last general business item tonight. It's item twenty twenty six two sixty four. It's a public hearing. One, an ordinance of the town council of the town of Erie approving the rezoning a portion of a property within the Sierra Vista Minor Subdivision to community Mixed Use, CMU, and a portion of the property to Airport AP2, a resolution to the town council of the town of Erie accepting dedications as shown on the Sierra Vista Minor Subdivision Number 2 plat.

Sorry, Mayor. Before we start, was asked to read something by the town attorney today. Today, received an email from a resident. I did not consider that email in preparation of tonight's public hearing. I encourage the resident to attend the meeting tonight or to provide his input if he could not be here to email his comments to the planning staff or the town's clerk's office, which it could be included on the public record. You.

Alright. Thank you. And I think that's just a reminder that we act as judges for land use in in this particular case as well and so we have to consider the facts that are presented to us tonight by staff, by the applicant, by others that will have a chance during public comment. Alright. I will turn this over to Christopher Larue, one of our planners.

Thank you very much. Chris Larue, principal planner for the town. I'm here tonight to present the Sierra Vista rezoning and minor subdivision. And so the project size, it's approximately 60 acres in total. 16 acres are proposed to be zoned to AP or airport. 18 acres would be CMU, and then another 26 acres would also be CMU. And they're divided out through the minor subdivision plat, which I'll show shortly.

Sorry. Can you hear me?

Sorry about that. Alright. So what they're proposing are three tracks on the subdivision. The existing zoning is low density residential and community commercial. The site is currently undeveloped. So here's the flow of the development review process and where we're at. The property's already been annexed, initial zoned. It's had some history on it that I outlined in the staff report. But currently, we're on this rezoning process, and it also has the concurrent minor subdivision that's creating tracks. And so just to be clear that tracks are undevelopable lots or parcels that are ineligible for building permits until they get further subdivided into lots.

So if they're successful tonight, there still be several application processes that will need to be done to include preliminary and final planning, site planning site plan. Sorry. And then if those are successful, there'd be a public improvements permit. And ultimately, building permits would be the end of the line on the development process. So I'm going to go over the background briefly.

Then we'll talk about their proposal and then offer the recommendation that we received from Planning Commission, and then the one that we're offering is staff. So the site is Northwest Of Highway 7 in Bonanza Drive, and it's highlighted in the red on the screen. There's airpark residential to the north. There is commercial directly across the street. There's a gas station, a daycare, and a storage facility.

And then also across the street, there's an unincorporated area that you can see that's in white. They're zoned for agricultural. They have a single family home and some agricultural uses on them. So here's a few shots looking in the area. This is north on Bonanza.

So it's standing across the intersection from 7 And Bonanza you can see the gas station on the right and the site there on the Northwest Corner and then this is looking more west into the site from Bonanza and 7 And then this is a little further north on Bonanza, approximately across the street from the storage facility, looking west across the site. So here's the existing zoning map for the site and surrounding area. Site itself is zoned low density residential. That's the kind of orangey that you see on the screen. And then community Commercial, which is on the Northwest Corner Of 7 in Bonanza, and that's the red that you see on the screen.

So the low density residential would allow densities of three to five dwelling units per acre. It only allows single family detached and duplex uses. And then the community commercial area, the existing zoning would allow a full range of community oriented retail and service uses that could potentially be located there. This is the comprehensive plan map for the site. Most of it is designated as employment.

That's the purple area in the map. And there's some corridor commercial, and that's the red that you see on the map. Employment areas are uses that generate employment, such as industrial flex space, potentially light manufacturing, medical, technical facilities, aeronautical, and incubator spaces. The community or the corridor commercial are uses that generate regional activity along highways and major arterials, obviously, for commercial uses. Residential use is a secondary use that could be contemplated within the employment area.

So here's a variety of comprehensive plan policies. I did a little bit more of an extensive analysis of all of these in the staff report, so I won't go through all the details. But the proposal could provide a mix of housing types to encourage a variety of housing, provide activity centers for residents, ensure new development meets comprehensive plan vision priorities. It would encourage infill. It does promote or could potentially promote mixed use neighborhoods and diverse housing opportunities near employment, could cultivate a mix of local, unique, and creative businesses, expand use of the airport community resource, locate higher density housing in mixed use development areas that are served or potentially served by transit.

So the next couple of slides will go over the applicant submittal and their proposal. They're proposing to zone the Northwest corner. It's 15.9 acres to airport or AP zone. That would allow airport related uses in commercial, potentially like restaurants, offices, or general retail. And then the other two sites, one is 26.1 acres, and the other one along Highway 7 is 18.4 acres, are both proposed to be rezoned to community mixed use or CMU.

So with CMU zoned properties up to 20 acres, they must have at least two principal uses. Over 20 acres in size would require to have three principal uses. And in either scenario, one of those uses must be residential for that zoning. And then you have to have a minimum of 25 of the gross floor area divided amongst the different uses so that you do get an actual mixed use of uses in the zone. This is the applicant's basic concept plan of how they would envision this to look with the airport uses and the community mixed use.

And the developer has provided some commitments that I outlined in the staff report. And here, they were talking about limiting building heights and creating 40 foot buffers, a 40 foot buffer along the community mixed use area. And then they were committing to 100 foot buffers for commercial along the airport use site. Both of these they've listed as pot notes. I think we'd noted that they're not enforceable per se, but they do represent commitments that the applicant has represented to town council and the community.

So looking at the approval criteria, there are several that you look at for the rezonings. Find that the proposed rezoning can support the proposed development intensity in a way that could promote the public health safety and welfare. It's consistent with the town's comprehensive plan, encourages several key goals. All utilities are available to the subject site while maintaining acceptable levels of service. No specific adverse impacts were identified or are expected.

Future developments will be evaluated on their ability to provide adequate levels of service as final planning and site planning comes in for specific development applications. Negative impacts are not anticipated to the environment. Detailed studies are required with future applications. We find this development will be compatible with the character surrounding land uses. We find the development will be compatible with character.

Our future development plans shall provide further evidence They'll fit within the surrounding uses. Allowing a broader range of uses should promote development along Highway 7 while advancing town goals of economic diversification and housing opportunities. So the staff find that the application applies with the approval criteria and recommends the town council approve the ordinance, rezoning the property to airport and community mixed use, and then also approve the resolution for the minor subdivision creating the three tracks. I didn't talk a whole lot about the minor subdivision. I mean, it is creating the three tracks.

The tracks are consistent with the zoning designations that I showed on that previous slide where it showed the acreages of each of them. And so that's really all that the minor subdivision does, is just make sure that the proposed zoning are all contained on one lot, that they're not split by lines. And again, tracks can't be developed until they're further subdivided through a plat. So in terms of neighborhood meetings, the applicant held two meetings, one on September 30 and another on October 30. Excuse me.

So the first one didn't fully meet requirements. That's why they held the second one so that it met the proper posting, noticing, etcetera, per our UDC. But they did have two of them. Concerns at the meetings include increasing air traffic, protecting the taxiway easements, potential commercial next to homes and stepping back and massing of possible structures the Planning Commission held a hearing on the rezoning application on April 1 they didn't consider the minor subdivision because those typically would go on the consent agenda, but because it was tagging along with the rezoning we added on for town council. The commission, the Planning Commission, heard comments.

They asked questions and deliberated before voting unanimously to recommend approval to town council the rezoning. Some of the topics included consistency with the comp plan, compatibility with existing development, possible traffic, possible uses, and impacts to the airport. So this slide just shows all the notices were properly met. I'd mentioned the neighborhood meetings and the planning commission. It was also published and posted with letters sent to adjacent property owners that concludes the staff presentation tonight the applicant has a presentation also prepared that I'll pull up And we're happy to answer any questions when you're ready.

All right. And I think we'll go to the second presentation, and then we'll go to public comment, and then we'll bring it back. And the public hearing is open, if I forgot to say that earlier.

All right. Good evening, counsel. My name is Heidi Majeric. I'm with Gauge Land Development. I'm a owners rep for BC Land. Thank you so much for this opportunity to present to you tonight, and would also just like to thank staff for their hard work on this application. I'd like to take a moment to introduce our team. I'm here with Becca Bailey with Norris Design. And then we also have Kevin Lovelace with LJA, the engineer of record. And we have Wyatt Carlson, who is the land owner. And the entire team will be available for your questions.

There we go.

Okay. So as Chris reviewed with you, we are asking for your approval on a rezoning with supporting minor subdivision, which will bring the site into compliance with the comp plan. The zone districts before you tonight were selected in collaboration with town staff in consideration of the town's stated goals in the comp plan, as well as the airport work plan to support economic development at the airport. These districts were also selected in consideration of the needs and desires of the FAA to have greater setbacks from the airport to residential development. The FAA has stated their discomfort with the current zoning on the property.

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

Thank you, Heidi. As Heidi mentioned, my name is Becca Bailey. I'm with Norris Design and working on the entitlements with this project. So as Heidi and Chris both mentioned, we are here to talk about the compliance with the comprehensive plan. So on the left, you see the previous comprehensive plan from 2015, which dictates the larger portion of the site as MU or mixed use.

And then the lower right portion of the site is community commercial. And then as you look at the right, you see kind of the same breakdown of shapes. And it is now, as Chris mentioned, employment and commercial corridor. So again, as Chris had mentioned, the site is not in compliance with the comprehensive plan. The low density residential does not fit in with the employment that is proposed with the comp plan.

And as Heidi and Chris also mentioned, the CMU zoning was chosen because there is not a straight zone category that currently correlates to the 2024 comprehensive plan of employment. So we worked along with staff to land on the CMU zoning, that you see before you tonight. And also just to mention that existing zoning does not comply with the town because of the low density residential. So looking at proposed zoning and how it does comply with the town comp plan, The proposed zoning meets the intent of the previous and existing comprehensive plans by using employment, and CMU. They have similar designations within the, municipal code.

The revised zoning will support a more diverse mix of uses that will strengthen the town of Erie's housing, retail, and employment base. The commercial also will likely be placed along the highway. Excuse me, any commercial uses will likely be placed along the commercial corridor along the existing Highway 7, with residential buildings as you move more north. The airport zoning has been made smaller to accommodate concerns we heard at neighborhood meetings while still maintaining the FAA's requirements set forth in their runway protection zones. And then this land use map, you looked at it with Chris's presentation as well.

It just better aligns to show where the airport use and the community mixed use will be proposed based on the subdivision plat. And also just to provide a transition of uses from the active runway to the west of the site, commercial to the east of the site, residential to the north, and highway immediately to the south.

So this slide details our application and review process. As Chris mentioned, we did conduct two community meetings. And from those community meetings, we created a stakeholder list. Folks were kind enough to give us their emails. And out of that, we sent four email updates to our stakeholder list that included links to our resubmittals, summaries of what changed in each of our submittals, as well as notification of our hearings.

And additionally, Becca and I did our best to make ourselves available to the community and engaged with them via email and phone calls. As Chris said, we heard concerns through that process from the residents in the airpark, as well as Anthem residents in Broomfield and the city and county of Broomfield. So from Anthem and from the city and county of Broomfield, we heard concerns about that this rezoning could increase air traffic. And additionally, the city and county of Broomfield, we got a late comment from them that expressed their desires to limit the allowable uses in the town of Erie's AP Zone District. From the air park residents, we heard the concerns about protecting the existing taxiway easement that's on the northern portion of the property.

It's a 40 foot wide easement that allows the through the fence access to those aviators that live in the airpark. We also heard concerns about having loud commercial or industrial uses up against those residential properties, as well as desire for quality architecture and appropriate massing adjacent to lower density residential properties. So after we heard those concerns and provided our notes from the community meeting to town staff, we worked with them. And out of that, we hired an avigation consultant called Meade and Hunt to assess the impacts of the proposed AP zoning on air traffic and airport operations. And what Meade and Hunt found was that the proposed rezoning to AP is not expected to increase air traffic or change the airport operations.

We also communicated with Jason Heard, the airport manager. And oh, thank you. And he indicated that this rezoning, which is on the east side of the airport, would not change the way aircraft operate or aircraft traffic patterns, and that there would be no change to the approach and departure corridors. It's important to note that the airport operations occur, with the exception of the aviators in the airpark, on the East or the West side of the airport. So the airport operations are occurring on the West side, not the East side, with the exception of the aviators in the air park who access from the East Side.

Out of the concerns that we heard from Broomfield, from the city and county, and from the Anthem residents, you've heard tonight we increased the amount of CMU zoning and decreased the amount of AP zoning. Originally, the AP zoning came all the way down to Colorado Highway 7, and now you can see the CMU goes all the way along the frontage of Colorado Highway 7. Because we are not requesting specialized zoning this evening, we are requesting straight zone codes, Broomfield's desire to limit the allowed uses in the town of Erie's AP Zone District would be more appropriately addressed at the site plan level in future applications. Thank you. She's ahead of me.

She knows I'm going to forget it again. So we wanted to share this map with you. It shows the FAA Part 77 restrictions on the site. The dotted line is the runway protection zone, and the color bands are the height restrictions that the FAA enacts on any kind of development that's adjacent to the airport. So you can see that what this application does is it gets almost all of those restrictions into the AP zoning.

And that was a previous concern of the FAA with previous applications on the site, is that that residential was coming right up to those lines. And so this provides some more buffer from that airport that we heard was concern to the FAA. And then going back to the concerns that we heard from the residents of the airpark and the plat notes that Chris talked about. Again, we heard concerns about protecting the taxiway easement on the property, a desire to limit loud commercial or industrial uses adjacent to homes, and assuring that quality architecture and the right kind of massing. So these are all valid concerns by the community that when an application comes in for a site plan, we'll need to sit down with the neighborhood with site plans and really go through these.

However, staff worked with us to place some notes on the minor subdivision plat that will help guide future site applicants and to help document the commitments we made to the community. More specifically, these notes restrict height adjacent to existing residential properties as well as creating setbacks to protect the community from loud community uses. We committed to 100 foot setback of commercial uses. But based on what we heard at Planning Commission, we're going to go ahead and commit to 100 foot setback of all uses off that North property line. We heard more concerns about safety with the aircraft that are using the taxiway easement.

So out of that, we said, Okay, let's just rather than 100 foot setback of commercial uses, let's just set back all uses 100 feet off of the entire North property line. This slide shows you where that taxiway easement is. It's in yellow. It doesn't extend the entire North property line. It stops at the end of that yellow.

But we're going to go ahead and commit a 100 foot setback of all uses along that entire North property line. But just keep in mind, there would still need to be utilities, drainage located in that 100 feet. So I'm just going to end with the rezoning approval criteria that staff has found that we meet. And a reminder that a next step for this site would be a preliminary plat, a final plat site plan that Chris had had in his slides. So this site would need to go back through more community engagement prior to coming back to you for any of those applications.

And it'll go through the same rigorous review process with staff that you saw on our slide. And I am going to ask you this evening for your approval on our rezoning request and our minor subdivision. Our team is here to answer your questions. Thank you so much.

Alright. Thank you. Go look to our, town clerk to see. Well, I know people have signed up, so we'll start with whoever has signed up.

So the first person is Johan Morris, and he is online. Mister Morris, you should be able to unmute and Can

you hear me? Yes. Yes.

Hi. This is Johan Morris. I'm a resident of Erie Airpark on the HOA, though not speaking for the s s for the HOA necessarily. I've I'm I'm I'm beyond, concerned that there is no, acknowledgment that the employment swath that was somehow placed over the Sierra Vista property was done so, I think, erroneously. And then that fact is now being used, the fact that there's a an employment zone there, then now now all of it has to change to a non low density residential place.

When when all of this started, the applicant was completely unaware of the easement. The FAA doesn't care about an easement on the South Side. The airport doesn't care about the easement. They have nothing to say about it. And and so only the only people that are concerned about it are the residents.

And it's not a residential area that people keep saying. It's a rural residential area. So even a meeting with the mayor, one of the one of our representatives, and some other neighbors, It seemed apparent that a Erie Airpark buffer zone should be created prior to any rezoning. And I just looked up even the the county in Adams County, they have a 100 foot setback from aircraft easements of any kind. So that would be a 140 feet.

I think a 100 feet is way too small. 40 feet is for the aircraft like wings, but no pilot is just gonna try to go down a narrow path of 40 feet. They need maneuvering room. So, again, it's the 40 feet is or excuse me. The 100 feet is is pretty pretty minimal from our perspective considering it's rural residential on the North Side and agricultural on the East Side.

So for staff to say that that it's okay and it looks good and it it seems to fit is preposterous. I think I've sent everybody further rationale on council

Twenty second.

Hope you take it into account. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Tim I can't say your last name.

Good evening, mayor council members. My name is Tim Durnick. I live at 3040 Cherokee in the Air Park. I'd like to start by saying I'm not categorically opposed to the development of the site. The property is sort of the last lonely island of undeveloped land there along that corridor. So the exponential rate of change to Erie sort of made that a foregone conclusion. And I would like to say that I'm sympathetic to the applicants in regard to this parcel. It's a difficult piece of land to zone. It needs to serve a bunch of different uses, a bunch of different masters. Highway 7 to the South, business, commercial, and retail, airport to the West, and the anticipated concerns of any FAA involvement.

And then across the full northern border of the property, we have the rural residential air park. And so the current proposal sort of bifurcates the parcel into the eastern and western zones, the AP zone on the West, CMU on the East. This division handles the business and the retail interest along Highway 7. It compensates for future objections for the FAA on the airport side and Broomfield. What it does not do is address the issues of the airpark to the north.

The proposal pushes the industrial aspects of the AP zoning right up to the rural airpark. It pushes the business, retail, and medium to high density residential aspects of the CMU right up against the rural airpark. This isn't completely accurate, as the applicant has stipulated a minimum 100 foot setback From the north. From the airport property lines. And that's a considerable amount of land from the owner to offer up.

And I appreciate that they've made the offer. And it shows good faith. It also demonstrates that everyone recognizes that this buffer or transition issue is an important one. However, of the portion of the northern border, and it's been ported out, there's a 40 foot wide aircraft easement. That 40 foot easement would exist within that 100 foot setback, which means that future development businesses or worse, multifamily homes would be 60 feet from taxiing aircraft.

For comparison, this room is about 50 feet. So all of this said, it seems that a more natural division than east to west would be north to south as we transition towards Highway 7. The south portion serving the CMU perfectly perfectly legitimate, the businesses and retail interests that border the highway. Perhaps some of the medium to high density housing towards the center of the parcel. Enough AP on the western side to alleviate the FAA concerns.

But the section to the north, the section that borders the rural air park, at minimum, should retain its low density residential zoning or some similar compatible classification. Preserving this transition area would significantly reduce potential conflicts and better protect the character and the safety of the rural residential area. Thank you for your time.

Alright. Thank you.

Next, we have John Beard.

Beard. Beard. Hi.

Welcome.

My name is John Beard. My wife Pamela and I are homeowners in Iriere Park, the rural residential neighborhood due north of the 60 area 60 acre property. We're here tonight to object to this resolution to the rezoning from low density residential and community commercial to community mixed use and airport. Primarily, the objection is to the community mixed use. So when we purchased our homes, we did so based on the town's existing master plan and the Erie Town Center plan development, which promised us a predictable low intensity transition between our quiet backyards and the commercial activity on Highway 7.

This rezoning effectively dissolves that promise. The current low density residential and community commercial zoning enables gradual building density next to our rural residential neighborhood. This current zoning means less traffic penetration farther north on Bonanza and reduces the chances that businesses with any associated noise and lighting will border the airpark. By removing the low density residential designation and replacing it with community mixed use, the town is moving the boundary of commercial activity right up to the edge of our Erie Airpark neighborhood. Currently, this northern strip of the property is zoned low density residential.

The zoning ensures that our neighbors to the south in Sierra Vista that eventually move in would be single family homes with yards, low traffic, and 35 foot height cap, meaning a gradual transition to our rural residential neighborhood to the north. This proposed rezoning to community mixed use is a radical departure. By removing the planned development and the low density residential designation, you're removing this safety rail that protects our property lines. Community mixed use is significantly less restrictive, giving developers the green light to build far more invasive structures, such as three story apartments or integrated commercial storefronts directly against our residential properties. So under the current low density residential and community commercial rules, business activity would be clustered south toward Highway 7.

If the proposed community mixed use change, that intensity is allowed further north, which would mean tall multiuse buildings looming over our private spaces and possibly higher density and increased activity. This would lead to more traffic, overflow parking on our residential streets, and increased noise in what is currently a quiet residential zone. Concluding flexibility for developers should not come at the expense of the Erie Airpark residents. While we understand the need for economic growth at what I think is called Erie 4 Corners, community mixed use designation is the wrong solution for this northern boundary. It's too broad, too invasive, and violates the buffer we were promised.

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

Alright. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Patty Anderson.

Mayor and council members, my name is Patty Anderson. I live at 3025 Cherokee Court in Erie. My property is directly north adjacent to the proposed rezoning property. I've lived there for eighteen years. I'm familiar with the history of the property that's being discussed, including prior owners of the property from the Pratt's first Sierra Vista plan back in 2015 and the Crestone oil and gas and now the rezoning proposal.

I've been to all the past neighborhood meetings, town hall meetings, and have appreciated those. My concerns with rezoning proposal is safety. There's an active aircraft, easement, and helicopter flight pattern directly north to the property. There needs to be a buffer of at least 140 feet, possibly 200 feet that could include fence and perhaps a berm landscaped with trees or a buffer. I also have a concern about height restriction obstructing our beautiful Colorado views.

Now we're in an area of possibly having 40 foot structures. The sunsets and mountain views off Bonanza and surrounding areas are stunning. Why would we take that away? Light and noise pollution. Currently, the lights from Maverick and the Erie Storage Building shine directly in my windows, which I have no control over.

I'm concerned there will be more light and noise pollution. Compatibility of neighboring residential property, having industrial buildings and possibly four story apartments next to a rural housing community with well over $1,000,000 homes may devalue the existing properties. Commercial zoning may be appropriate directly off Highway 7 but is not adjacent to low density residential zoning. Thank you for listening to my concerns.

All right. Thank you.

Our next speaker is Pamela Beard.

Good evening.

Hi. I'm Pamela Byard. I live at 275 Skyline Drive. I've lived there for twenty six years. I'm here to urge you tonight to not vote on the proposed zoning change and the 63 acre parcel.

I've watched this corridor transform for over a quarter century, and I'm here to speak to the physical hazards and the irreversible safety impacts this change would create for myself and my neighbors. This property is not flat. It is a double double slope blind spot. It has several double slopes falling both north and south and east to west. As someone who drives Bonanza Road for twenty six years, I can tell you the incline is rising from Highway 7 is a notorious danger.

It creates significant blind spots for drivers cresting the hill by rezoning for high intensity and commercial use. You're inviting high volume traffic and heavy trucks and navigate a steep vertical curve, and it's not engineered for this capacity. It was always a two lane small road, and now it's taking high traffic. It's a recipe for catastrophic collisions. On the north side of this property is a critical safety buffer directly to the north boundary of the residential taxiway and a helipad.

These are active aviation infrastructures, placing high density buildings on a slope that rises towards the homes and creates a vertical wall of encroachment. These low density single family homes have anchored this property for fifty years. They're actually rural. What I meant to say is rural residential homes. They've been there for fifty years.

This is actually the first housing development outside of Downtown Erie. We purchased this property with a quiet lifestyle not to have our taxiways and pathways crowded by commercial rooftops and light poles and looking at HVAC units. We are a dark sky independent community. Over the last two decades, I've seen our stars disappear. The light spill from Highway 7 alone is already a challenge.

Adding sixty three April commercial glow directly adjacent to the runway, helipad, and direct our direct safety hazards. Furthermore, the noise from Highway 7 is already intense in our neighborhood. The occasional plane is part of our life. I knew that when we moved here. I am not a pilot nor is my husband.

The twenty four hour drone of Highway 7 that has increased and reverberates off the slope into our bedrooms is fundamentally incompatible with homes that were here long before this development was ever thought of. It's incompatible. You cannot mitigate away a slope this steep in two different directions, nor can you ignore the proximity to the helipad and active taxiway. This zoning change ignores the history of this land and the safety of citizens who have lived here for decades. This is incompatible use of the land. I urge you to not vote for this change. The safety of our community, the drivers, and the rights of our long term residents are here. Here.

All right.

Thank you.

And the last person who signed up is Brian Bednar.

Good evening.

I'm Brian Bednar, 280 Skyline Drive. I'm gonna summarize the three main points in the memo that I sent for the record. I have three main points to cover. First, the rezoning of this land as mixed use is moving the town from a function focused zoning of of residential to a yet to be determined mixed bag of 40 property uses that will be permitted by right. These uses literally cover cradle to grave from childcare centers to nursing homes to crematories with many in between, like nightclubs and taverns.

So rather than the town approving a zoning that's appropriately fits our neighborhood, it gives developers freedom to choose from those 40 different functions to build next to our community. Erie's UDC lays out criteria for it must be satisfied in rezoning this area as community next use. Basically, it says that don't screw up what's already there. And in addition to that, make sure that the appearance and function is compatible and integrated with the surrounding communities. I think the fact that you're giving free rein to the developers to use any of those 40 functions, you need to properly evaluate that every one of those satisfy those criteria.

My third concern is the most critical, though. Roughly one quarter of traffic fatalities and half of traffic injuries occur intersections. The impact analysis submit in this middle calls for a 460 foot intersection site distance for the main entrance off of Bonanza. All we're getting is 390 feet. And because it is likely to generate a lot of heavy truck traffic, this really needs to be 592 feet, and we're only getting the 390.

Simply put, because of the hill on Bonanza Drive, even the rare driver going the speed limit will not have enough time to avoid hitting traffic exiting this development as it's turning onto Bonanza. Even putting that traffic circle at that intersection will not meet traffic engineering standards. Additionally, because the required concept plan was not submitted for this project, the traffic numbers are a guess. And even according to planner Chris Larue, are likely to increase beyond what is in the study. And even these inaccurate low traffic counts, the analysis shows that afternoon traffic jams at the primary will occur at at the primary entrance.

That plus the intersection being too close to the crest of the hill is a deadly combination. So please don't placate us by saying that there'll be future chances to comment on on this. There are at least three good reasons for not approving this tonight. First, the town guidance requires a concept There is none. The town's UDC approval criteria, if you can't name any compatible function from the 40 permitted by right uses other than open space, then you should send this application back.

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

Thank you.

I don't have anyone else signed up.

Is there anybody else in the audience who would like to speak to us tonight on this topic? Come on up.

Thank you, mayor Moore and town council. My name is Mike Eggleston. I live at 3020 Cherokee Court, Erie. I only really have one thing, and this the whole deal is I just feel like this change of zoning is so wide open. What was just discussed is how many different things can be there.

And as the town already knows, we've had this in the past where things have been approved, and then it comes in other than what town council thought it was gonna be because it was a council before you that approved this. And it ends up into possible lawsuit, or we have to give in. This is such a broad application that can be put here without knowing what's going on and what's going in. And I understand as a developer, he's not gonna be able to name exactly what it is. But I think if we narrowed it down to a section of what it could be, it could be then more reasonably looked at and discussed as to how we can do this.

Right now, we have no idea. I mean, that opportunity, like he said, 60 some categories that this could be. And who knows what it's gonna be? And my house is one house off of where it backs up to. And like we've said, it's too bad. We're a growing city. We understand it. Light pollution is terrible. I mean, we have no sidewalks. We have no street lights. We love it there. And we'd hate to see it go away. And the other thing is, like they've been talking, from where we're at, my house is almost the tallest point in the airpark except for this section. It's probably another 50 to 60 feet higher than the roof of my house. So now you add 40 feet on top of that, and it just destroys what's there.

And it's not gonna be a good use. And that's really all I have to say. Thank you very much.

Alright. Thank you. Would anybody else like to address this tonight? Okay. Then with that I'm gonna close, actually I'm gonna bring, questions back from counsel to staff for the applicant and then I will close the public hearing at that point. Anybody want to go first?

Okay. Councilmember Mortolero. So first I want to understand easements better. I know that applicant is agreeing to do a 100 foot easement on the the North Side or actually around the whole North Side.

So a 100 foot buffer from the North property line, the entire North property line south. So part of that can I go back to the picture, Chris?

Yes, hang on. Let

me just put that picture back up for you,

if that's Okay.

Thanks. Okay, go ahead. Great.

So you can see the entire North property line there. The taxiway easement, which is 40 feet, that's where the community has right to operate their aircraft. Right? It's at 40 feet on that taxiway.

Okay. Yellow section

The yellow section is the 40 feet

aircraft

And that is, yeah, that is a recorded easement.

Okay.

Okay? And so what we're committing to tonight is a 100 foot buffer from that north property line south. So where you see the yellow easement, from that property line, the easement's 40 feet, and then it'd another 60 feet to the south of that, To the east side of the site, where there is no taxiway easement, that would just be the full 100 foot buffer. So what you could expect to see in that area is utilities, drainage. Because this is just a rezoning, there are no identified uses, there is no site plan, that would be a future application.

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

Thank you. Next was the the traffic. It concerns about the grading of the of the area. And I see there's, two entrances to the you know, potentially two entrances or access points to the property or to the site, on Bonanza. Is there a reason for that? And could that be limited to one access point?

Yes. I'll answer that in a second. I wanted to, if you don't mind, touch the easement question again just to make sure that's clear. They're proposing a buffer, not an easement. So there are a couple of options there. You could expect to see that easement potentially on a future final plat. Another option would be potentially to condition it to be placed on the this plat, the minor subdivision, prior to recordation. So I want to make sure you understand that.

Okay. Yep. Thank you.

Okay. And then let's see. Transportation, so you're talking about access. So obviously, anything that's proposed is preliminary at this point. There there's a opportunity that they may be able to receive an access to Highway 7, that would more than likely be limited to right in, right out.

You wouldn't get probably a signal or a left turn out of there. So it's true that the traffic analysis that they provided is high level, and it's based on potential uses in the zone. In terms of limiting accesses, we can't can't necessarily do that at a rezoning stage. We would definitely wanna investigate those accesses with future site planning as it comes in.

Yeah, I would say we definitely want would want to look at that in any future planning on the site. And the fact that the more access points as traffic does increase, it could create other situations and backups and whatnot. And maybe you could pick a position that would be safer if you only had one access point.

Yes. Thank you for that comment. We definitely would wanna look at that. I think it would probably, bear stating that accesses should line up across from each other. You know, with Commons Drive and or driveway accesses, you don't typically want those to be offset, especially if there's a lot traffic of going in those areas. I think that's an important point to make.

And in the traffic study, does it talk about the grade of bonanza in the crest of the hill, etcetera?

I may look to the applicant and have them, if their traffic engineer is here to answer that question. I'm not an engineer, so I'm not necessarily prepared to answer

that at the moment.

Councilman, I'd like to take a whack at that and see if I answer your question. And then if we need Kevin to chime in, we can. This is a preliminary TIA. The town has a process by which we complete a base assumptions form. Because there is no site plan, because there are no identified uses, we make assumptions for counts that we put into that base assumption form.

Staff and staff's consultants review it. We get that approved, and then we move forward based upon that. As folks have pointed out, there is a substantial grade on Bonanza. So when a future use is identified and a site plan is done, it would do a final it would do a final TIA, which at that point in time, it takes in consideration the grades. As Chris pointed out, Commons Drive across the way, all of those kinds of dynamics to determine where exactly an access point could be.

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

Okay. Thanks. I think that's

an

important thing to keep in mind as as if this moves forward.

Thank you.

And then I did notice in the history that in 2012, this was zoned as as high density residential and commercial corridor. Is that accurate? And then in 2014, it was changed to low residential and commercial?

Yes, that's correct. And originally, at the time with the annexation agreement that's still in place, the density did allow up to 500 units of multifamily for that annexation agreement. Yes, given the history of the site, it originally started as a higher density development. I wasn't here for all these, but I think probably there is some pushback in terms of the development, maybe density next to the airport. Then they decided to lower the density and rezone, as you indicated on the history.

I'm not sure if that

answered exactly what you're asking. I could add more if you need more.

No, I was kind of just wanting to confirm the history that I'd gone through and whatnot. Thanks.

I think I'm good. Thank you. Okay. Councilor Baer.

Thank you. Thank you for the presentation. So so we're talking about specifics for road design. I do have concerns about Bonanza. I think that there's some really there have been some concerns that are valid with that road and concerns with traffic. But more questions about zoning. What's the difference between commercial corridor and CMU zoning? What are some examples of what would go in commercial corridor, commercial? I

think the primary difference is that community mixed use the key term in there is mixed use. It requires a certain number of principal uses, one of which has to be resident Chris,

would you mind using the microphone?

I'm sorry. Sorry about that. I'll start over. The CMU District differs from corridor commercial in that it's a mixed use district. It requires certain numbers or principal uses. I think it was 20 or less. You have to have two. If it's greater than that, you have to have three, one of which has to be residential. That's probably the primary difference. And then the community commercial, of course, is strictly a commercial zone. I think that's probably the primary difference. I could look at the use tables. I mean, you can have some similar uses in terms of the commercial that's permitted in both.

So under CMU, is low density residential one of the eligible uses?

Chris, did you want to answer that?

Could you repeat that? You asked if single family

Low density residential. Is that one of the uses? Let me just Or Yes. At the use

table to make sure I answer it correctly. No, single family detached is not permitted in the CMU zone. It's primarily supposed to be higher density, medium type density residential. Some of the goals of the comp plan talk about putting more options for housing near community or commercial corridors. So I could tell you really quick I'm sorry, I keep fading away from the microphone things that are allowed in CMU in terms of residential include live work.

It does prohibit duplex, but it allows multifamily. Those are the residential uses. So it is more of your higher density type residential.

Okay. Let's see. Some of my questions were asked, so I don't want to repeat. So the airport zoning, one of the use by rights that's listed in the chart that was provided in the packet is helipad or heliport? Does

that

mean that if that use came to counsel, like, they wanted to locate there that we would counsel would be required to approve that or not even maybe it wouldn't even come to council because it's a use, but right?

Well, I imagine it would probably require a site plan to go with it. It depends on the extent. But yes, if it's a permitted use, that could potentially be allowed there. Any requirements that may come into play, planning would be needed probably to create a lot for it. Site plan likely would be required for it.

So there would be review opportunities from that front. So you could make comments based on maybe lot configuration or failing to meet technical requirements of planning. Or maybe there's some site planning issues that you could comment on with respect to design or layout or look or looking to see how referral agencies may comment on a site plan for that kind of thing Okay. Located there.

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

Yes, it would.

So my other question is, forgive my ignorance, could hearing commenters this evening talk talk about respecting kind of the rural residential zoning on the North End, is there a possibility to zone this so that we respect that zoning and sort of step down towards commercial use?

Is there a possibility to change the zoning request? Yes. We would have to probably delay action. The applicant would have to be willing to apply for the zoning. We'd have to do the process over again from that perspective.

If I could just speak to that quickly. In residential detached for sale, you'll typically see lot depths in the range of 90 feet deep to 120 feet deep. So that 100 foot buffer is in that range of what you would see in a single family detached lot. Now granted, for a part of it, 40 feet of it is a taxiway easement. So I just wanted to put that forward that that 100 foot buffer is rather substantial when you start to think about transitioning uses.

There's a lot of opportunity to look at how you design that with what a speaker had talked about with berms and landscaping and fences.

May I add a little to that, if that's all right? Yeah, so I did want to answer your question on the rezoning. But just, yes, if they're offering this buffer, would be probably very helpful in terms of how much open area you have on the North. There's other opportunities to look at that as well with site planning and consistency. There's a lot in the code about making sure there's good transitions from one uses to another.

So things you can look at, especially for taller buildings, are step ups. You start low, maybe bring it higher as you go further into the site. Those are all things we can require with site plan and design to create consistency with adjacent uses. That's it

for All

right. Questions from this side of the dais? Councillor Rupeshwara, no? Mayor Pro Tem.

Sorry, who's that? Looks like you're up. Sorry. Sorry. I'm sorry. I was not ready.

Last we knew that.

Did you guys have more? I've moved before. Okay. Alright. I guess it's me. Have I have questions. Middle of

I have questions if

Do you want to go for it? Because I'm still yeah. I'm still gathering myself.

Sorry. I thought you'd indicated you already. My my fault there. So the zoning and use by right is a concern, to me. I think we saw this at our last meeting where we did not approve something, another land use. Somebody mentioned a cremation facility, crematorium, a helicopter pad. Right? This land will get developed. I have no doubt about that. It's too strategic and I think there is a great need for Erie for retail and being able to to generate more tax revenue off of Highway 7.

Talk to me a little bit about this step down. That's an important concept. It came up back at Arapahoe and a hundred and eleventh where you have low density and then you're putting right next to it high density. This is rural density if I understand it correctly. That could be right up against apartment complexes if I'm understanding this correctly. So, I think part of our comp plan though is to have transition. And so how is that being addressed if we were to approve this tonight?

So it wouldn't be directly addressed with the rezoning request tonight. But obviously, there's a lot we've talked about with respect to design and how that would look at site planning stage and how it's laid out with plotting. So that transition from that lesser intensity use down towards a higher intensity use would need to be looked at very carefully in terms of how that may work. I may have missed some of what you asked, but step down isn't necessarily lower density going to higher. It's maybe massing of buildings being smaller, step back further so that the taller type structures aren't directly adjacent to lower intensity uses.

And it could create just a better environment in terms of pedestrian level on how that looks, say, from the rural side. There are things you can do to design to try to mitigate or soften that or add buffers. A lot of things would be on the table for that.

So somebody had come up and had mentioned that maybe a better split of this land would be north south as opposed to East west. I'm almost feeling like, as I'm looking at the diagrams and let me just say, I'm not a planner. Right? I I don't know all the intricacies. But I could see the big picture and it almost feels like the airport use on the the West is fine.

But it seems like there should be a transition where you have low density residential or medium density residential that transitions off of the large lot rural development. And then as you get closer to Highway 7 that you bring in the mixed use and the higher density and the businesses. Otherwise, I'm really concerned that we will be sitting here with the zoning that we really have no say once we do that. So I'll look to the applicant.

Yeah. And I think that there are great strategies that can be deployed with any type of residential development. So in addition to the 100 foot buffer that we've committed to, and that there are pretty good, great design guidelines in the UDC for architectural development and how multifamily buildings would meet that site and any primary road or what's adjacent to it, and how the buildings may have to address that from a massing standpoint. But one of the things that you'll see that's pretty common in any kind of multifamily development now, is from a rental standpoint, you often see a two or three story townhome building form used in addition to your three and four story building form. So while there are no multifamily developers under contract on this land.

We had talked to a couple and they felt that that would likely be a strategy that they would deploy. So I think staff can look at those building farms and the reality is a future application is gonna need to sit down with this community. They have real valid concerns, they will need to sit down with the site plan and address those concerns. And there's ways you can do it with how you orient the building. Maybe they're not oriented east west, they're oriented north south, so you're looking at the end.

You can use those two and three story townhome forms adjacent. Remember, you can do a lot with that 100 foot buffer that is the depth of a single family lot, with the exception of the 40 foot easement. Even in 60 feet, you can look at Berming. Can look at the fencing, you can look at landscaping. As somebody said, I think our site is higher, right?

And so that those trees that you could plant up there are gonna have a big impact. So I think that the staff's thoughtful review in a site development plan, the code does afford ability to address that type of transition in in addition to that 100 foot buffer in a future application.

But just to be clear, no duplexes, no single family homes in this, which to me means the transition will be abrupt. It feels like it will be abrupt from what I can visualize you know as I'm thinking this through. So that's a concern and is the applicant willing to go back and look at single family or have you guys looked at it and said absolutely not.

I'm gonna have to look for go ahead.

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

It depends on what we're proposing. But feasibly, we would want to look at that if we're going to drastically alter a land use. If we're talking about a small area, we might we'd have to look. We might be able to make it work. But potentially.

I mean, I think that's part of the concern that we were trying to be as respectful to the Town Of Erie comp plan as we can, as well as the residents, and trying to still give everyone a little bit. We can't make everyone happy all the time. We understand that. But I think that's kind of the path forward that we chose.

Yep. Okay. I understand. And I also am highly concerned about the the transition from arguably development that's been there a long time. Right?

Old Town is probably the only development that's been there longer. And having understanding that this land should be developed. We need it to be developed for our long term financial health. So I'm not against the development but I do feel like we should be very thoughtful and to really understand how that step down or transition can be done without limiting ourselves tonight simply by saying, hey, it's zoned for this thing and then we're tied in and actually tying our hands, from being able to do that transition. Alright.

My second concern as I was writing things down is the road. I don't understand all the the traffic issues but there were definitely, I understand the hill. I've been on that hill many times and as you're coming down towards Highway 7, know if you don't have proper line of sight and you're flying over that hill I could certainly see where that could be a problem. I would certainly want more information on that before I'd be comfortable moving forward with what's been presented tonight.

That just in response that would be difficult to do until there were uses identified where the you know exactly what traffic they're going to create. The traffic report that we've done is the extent of what can be done at a rezoning. So that would be a future application where we'd be able to provide that level of detail.

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

Yeah, absolutely.

All right, let me go back to Okay. I'm ready.

Let me go to the buffer zone a second, go back to that. So on the guess on the east side, I see there's a dirt road connecting to Manzan, which I know is not part of the navigation easement. But is is there an access easement into there that's still being kept, or is that

going away?

Yes. There is an existing access easement that runs along the north part of the property and a little bit into some of the airpark properties. It's 40 feet in width

total. Go

ahead. I think you're talking about from Bonanza, where you

could From Bonanza to that

You can see on the aerial. So, yeah, from Bonanza on that aerial that you're looking at, that's not a a public easement easement or access.

Okay. Alright. Yeah. I just

yeah. Oh.

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

Yeah. Got you. Yeah.

I figured social.

Okay. Alright.

Sorry. I misunderstood what 're asking.

Yep. No worries. Yeah. And then, Chris, going back to what you said, I'm just trying to understand this difference between the buffer and the easement. So the because I think you mentioned there could be utilities there. So there's not a utility easement

in addition to that? What I think there let me look at the plat just really quick to make sure I answer correctly. Let's see. It looks like there are some easements up in the up in that area. There's a sewer easement, some water easements.

Conceptually, we wanted to make sure that some of these larger ones were included on the plat so that it could potentially facilitate future development. We just wanted a of a broad look of how that was going to be laid out with the understanding that those could change with future needs, planning on on how that works. But there are some utility easements that are shown on the plat, at least on track A, which is the AP side. Looks like there's a water easement through it's a long answer. Yes, there are some utility easements on the North Side that are shown on the plaque currently.

And then going back to on the section that's being zoned for airport. So with the uses on there, I mean potentially is there going to be another avigation easement to for those users, potential users to access the airport? I guess Well,

let me see what the language says on here. I mean potentially if there's a new easement, it would have to be negotiated. Let's take a look a little bit more on these accesses. They do say they're for access for the airport and runways. I guess generally we'd want to take a look at that, but possibly.

Okay. Guess I'm trying to understand with the safety zones FAA has in from the end of the runway there, like what that would potentially look like. Yeah. You had hangars there or something like that.

Sorry. If something like that were to be proposed, like a heliport or something, I mean, we'd need to get FAA to weigh in.

I'm not I don't think you honestly, I don't think you could put a heliport there. But if there's just hangars, just normal aviation, what I assume they're gonna want through the fence and

yeah I would I would assume that too and I think potentially those could be used for that we need to take a look at it just to double check

okay

new easements may be necessary depending on where they wanted to access I think we'd need to look into that a little further before I confidently answer that one for you.

Okay. All right. That's fine.

And if I could just add to Any that really use that would come into that site would also have to look at grades. Yep. Right, because while you have that current taxiway easement, as you get to the south, there's some more grades. I think there'd be pretty limited opportunities to access beyond that northern boundary. And so that would all have to be reviewed when uses are identified for that. When and if.

Okay. Going back to some understanding this. Somebody mentioned from the presentation that off Bonanza potential entryway into the site. I mean, this is just zoning. There's not a plat here. But potentially, what would be the minimum from the code setback from the intersection that you could go in access into from off Bonanza into the site.

I don't actually know number. Okay. Call on John here. Yes, ma'am. Thank you, John.

Hi. I'm John Ferruzzi, transportation mobility manager. So just looking at the roadway classification coming off of Highway 7, Bonanza is a major collector in that segment between Highway 7 and Sunset. And in that classification, the roadway intersection distances for a full movement is 400 feet. For a three quarter movement, so a limited access, that would be about 300 feet. So the nearest intersection would be roughly where Commons is, but would be restricted. So it aligned with the street across from it. Okay. That makes sense.

Thank you. And then going going so back to the UDC, so on mixed use or commercial or sorry, community mixed use. So language here, the CMU district is intended to include commercial, institutional, recreational and service facilities needed to support surrounding neighborhoods and the community at large. Medium to higher density housing should be incorporated within or located around CME Zone District and development should facilitate pedestrian connections between residential and non residential land uses. So I guess in here and somebody mentioned, don't see language in here about right by use what would be special review use.

But I would say, this mix of commercial with residential had that in other areas. But potentially how does staff work with the developer on that in determining would be proper uses that you want to see here before you bring it to us if it's depending if it's right by use or special review use.

So yes, it's kind of complicated. I mean, terms of any proposals that they're going to present in the future, they or somebody else in terms of uses there. Generally, the first step is a pre application meeting, informal meeting. We'd go over the process, talk about what the uses are. Obviously, if there are uses that are incompatible, say, near commercial, we'd want to see those located further south, closer to Highway 7.

Most commercial uses are going to want to be along there if they're trying to get people to come in there. And then site plan reviews, once it gets to that point, potentially could be reviewed by Planning Commission if they're large enough. A multi family development would go to Planning Commission. A single site plan might not. But I did mention in our staff report that we have an option to do more of like a kind of overall site plan.

We did something similar with Highlands, I believe, on that commercial area where we'd want to see kind of a layout broadly, how it might look, pedestrian connections. That's an option that we potentially could require to try to vet the layout, potential uses. Okay. We couldn't say that a use is prohibited from locating in a place that it's zoned for. But you certainly have a lot of comments that we can make on compatibility, where it's located on the site, how it's designed, laid out.

Okay. And then for the applicant, I know with the existing zoning where it's there at commercial at the quarter, and I realize that the community mix use opens up more of those possibilities. But typically in I'm assuming a corner section is probably going to be where more commercial will naturally draw to. So are expecting even though we're kind of opening up that use more, but more of the commercial, I'm assuming, will be towards that corner section?

We're expecting in that more towards that intersection, but also along Colorado Highway 7. And what we're really expecting it to be is more office type uses, medical support, those types of things, because there is a lot of retail already to the east. So that's what we think, but again, there are no contracts for any of this land. That's what we think will go there.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have.

Got a couple? I'm good. Okay. You're good. Mhmm. Chancellor Houba.

Thank you. One one quick question tagging on to the idea of transition from the neighborhood to to the commercial use. Just throwing out there the idea of low density residential without any use. Discussing any acreages or size of the property that would probably be relatively small. Sounds like that would be a challenge to be financially viable.

I'm sorry, Councilman Hopac. I just want to repeat your question back to you. Are you asking me if for sale residential product along that North property line would be viable?

Is that what Right. Because of the size of the neighborhood that it would be?

I don't know. I couldn't say that it wouldn't be viable. We have a shortage of housing. It's hard to say it wouldn't be viable. It just starts to get to a point of the infrastructure that you have to build to support it that would make it get to a point where it would be extremely expensive housing. It's just that infrastructure. And my

point, yeah.

Oh, Okay. Not that you Yeah, I'm

Didn't do it,

but, you know.

Now I'm with you. Yeah,

On just market,

I mean. The infrastructure cost would be

Yeah, you'd have to have Substantial. Yeah. Thank you. Okay.

So we could do a couple of things here. I can ask for a motion to approve and we could see where that goes. I could ask for a motion to continue if the applicant is willing to work on the zoning that doesn't lock us in to things that we may or may not work but I'm not exactly sure how that would work. So I think I'm looking to Mr. Larue to give us some guidance and potentially our attorney, depending on which way we go here. So

make sure I understand exactly what you're asking. If you're looking to put restrictions on zoning, that's not something that I think we could do. If you're asking them to potentially explore alternative zonings to place on the site, I guess that's probably something we could talk about. But it wouldn't restrict uses per se except by what's allowed in the zoning. I think that's what you're asking.

Yeah. Well, I'm looking at two criteria. So I don't believe this meets, two criteria. And so I'd have a hard time voting yes on it myself. The first one is item e, which is the rezoning is not likely to result in significant adverse impacts upon other property in the vicinity of the subject property.

And so I'm struggling with that one. And then f is future uses on the subject property compatible in scale with uses on other properties in the vicinity of the subject property. So I think about that and go well is a helicopter pad out there, is that a compatible in the use? For code it is, but is it within the surrounding? I don't know.

A cremation facility, is that compatible with the other product? It doesn't feel like it is. And so I'm struggling on e and f and you know as a as a judge, right, we're all judges here. If I'm struggling with e and f it'd be hard for me to say at least my one vote be yes because I don't think it meets the criteria of E and F. Unless somebody can help me in why it does meet the criteria for E and F.

Would it be, Mayor Moore, would it be possible to hear before you decide which motion and we give you feedback on that

Yes.

To hear comments from the rest of council? Yes. Because while we heard questions, not everybody asked questions. And I'd love to hear comments. And then perhaps I could give you some feedback to your question that you asked about motions. Would that be all right?

Thank you.

All right. So how about I just I'll start on my left and we'll just loop all the way around. So council member Berry, you have the floor.

Thank you. Yeah. I I struggle with this for a number of reasons. The compatibility of uses is sort of paramount. I appreciate the idea of the step down and considering that we have made accommodations for other uses around but not the rural residential is concerning to me.

And I think that saying, you know, that how a nightclub or crematorium is designed or laid out, I think that's a little comfort for the community. I also really have concerns about airport, the airport zoning. I understand that the FAA is not happy with the current zoning, and so there needs to be consideration for airport operations. But that designation of the airport zoning in that sort of Upper Northwest corner would allow for expansion when our community, including our airport residents, are saying that that raises concerns for them. So I I feel like there is a better solution there.

I feel like that was kind of the low hanging fruit, and we could figure something else out. That said, Colorado 7 is developing. We we hope to see and plan to see bus rapid transit launching at the end of this year, I believe, along the corridor. We want to expand so that there is a stop there at Bonanza and Colorado 7. And it is a great corridor for commercial.

And I think that there is potential. And I think that, to Miriam Moore's point, this corridor will get developed. But this is the phase where we have the ability to inform what that development looks like through the zoning. So I would like to see zoning that respects the rural residential abutting the northern edge while also marrying to the Colorado 7 corridor. And it's a tough ask, but I have no doubt that you're the person to figure that out.

So that's kind of where I'm at. And the safety issues and easements that were raised, the bonanza is a difficult one that's going to have to be addressed no matter what goes in. But, yeah. I'm I'm leaning towards a no vote on that rezone.

Okay. Councilmember Mortolero.

Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. As mayor Moore and council member Baer said, we we fully expect that the, you know, the the part across along seven is gonna be developed. I think everybody who who even lives in that area expects that to be developed.

The challenge with zoning is that it opens up a lot of opportunities, for what can be there. And we've shown that we can have multiple zonings on this property, you know, was commercial corridor and and low density was commercial corridor and high density. I'd I'd like to see, you know, something in a zoning that allowed to step down whether to medium or, you know, as you mentioned, low density may be a challenge from a from a cost perspective or, but is it possible to, quantify the units per acre in on the northern part of this property? I'd like I'd like to see.

Okay. Councilor Hoback.

Thank you. You know, I agree with the mayor. I think this will eventually be developed. And I think this is the type of development that the town needs along that corridor. We need some higher density. We need some commercial. It's a growing public transport corridor.

I

don't know if anything will be built there if we insist on single family housing in addition to a buffer or as the buffer. I'm not particularly concerned about the airport part of it because of the lack of continuity to the west side of the runway. It'd be a standalone operation of some sort. And I don't know what that might be. So yeah, I guess I'm leaning towards yes.

Okay. Councilwoman Petz from LA.

Yeah. So we see commercial vacancy in Erie is, like, 2.5%, and it's very low. We need more commercial and businesses in Erie. And this is a very good spot, and we need to capitalize on the traffic counts on Colorado 7. I am for it, but I have some concerns, which is all the concerns that everybody mentioned, traffic, step down.

And there is a risk of once we zone it, maybe we are limiting the or expanding it to many possibilities. I understand when the approval comes and or the plotting comes. Again, there is a discussion. But if we can limit possibilities of, you know, having these nightclubs or, for example, which are disturbance for the community which already exists there. So those are my negatives or positives for this one. Thank you.

Thank you. I do have the same concerns regarding the step down between the or step up from rural residential to what could be multifamily units. The buffer is also a concern. I know it's 60 feet, but there's really no no one's really talked about a great barrier to keep people from using the taxiway for non aircraft use. I know there's been an issue in other parts of the airport where vehicles have crossed active taxiways, and people have used active taxiways to take a walk or walk their dogs.

Even if it's 60 feet, that's not that far for someone to wander over to a taxiway and use it as a footpath. I also have the bonanza concerns. I wish I mean, I know it doesn't have to be done at this point, but I wish some sort of concept plan came along with this rezoning request. It's really hard to visualize the vision of the developer without seeing something like that. It's just being asked to change from, one zoning to the other, which opens it up to a whole list of uses that may or may not be compatible with the surrounding neighbors to the north who are zoned for all residential and could have a significant impact on their property depending on what goes there.

So I I feel to for me to actually move this forward, I would want more information. I would want some sort of sketch, some sort of concept to see what the vision is.

Thanks. Yeah. Per Tim.

Thank you. I guess I'm a bit the same position as as council member Hoback. I think according to the criteria for zoning standards, think this meets most, if not all of those. But I do understand the concerns that are brought up here tonight. I just want to mention one thing on the airport side of things and be good if staff could review this with Jason Heard and the airport staff that I don't think you could have a helipad there.

I think it's too close to the protection zone for the runway. I was trying to use AI to look up stuff on that. But I do know there are protections zones for that, plus the terrain there, I think, is helicopter pads have to have a certain amount of area that for touchdown. So I don't think that's going be a concern. The only thing you could really have there is hangars.

And there is a need for hangars right now. We get for those of us on the liaison to the airport board and there's a mile long list for hangar availability. And but my concern with that is just that we'd have to figure out if there are hangars in that area or if there's an applicant because we don't there may not we could zone it whatever want to. There may not be an applicant there. But you 'd have to figure out a way to get some sort of access onto the taxiway.

And the only way I just looking at it, visualizing it, the only way I could see is is to use somehow have that property get onto the existing taxiway. So but I do think that that corner we've obviously seen a lot on the East Side Of Bonanza with some of the commercial development around there. I think it's natural to get commercial development out here. And I know that the commercial mix use has kind of been a popular new thing. But I do understand the concerns.

And so I guess I would throw out that rather than just reading the dais here, don't think we have support for this to pass today. But I'm wondering if we could possibly have a motion to move this to a future date for reconsideration. I'd go to our town attorney to see what what what are our possibilities here.

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

A date certain.

Alright. So I wanna go back to the Applegate. Would

it be

possible to just have a continuance? Because we hear your concerns. I think there's ways we can work with you. If you can give staff some feedback on what issues you'd want to restrict and what step downs looked like to you, we can figure out together how to address those concerns. And so that just takes a little time to work through that.

So could be happening at certain.

Won't allow changes to the application either.

Yeah. So councilor Hoback is going where I was gonna go there. Right. If we continue it, it could come back but then if there's no changes then we can't it will end up in the same spot. So how do we get to the place where they could consider a different zoning or a different way to move this forward?

Yeah. I mean, think there's a couple of options we could consider, too, in terms of how to do the application. We potentially consider a planned development, which is a site specific negotiated type of zoning that requires a lot of work and effort, which

is

fine. But I think we'd need some time, if that's the choice they decide to make on that front. Yes, you could do a strip of zoning up there. But there again, we'd need to re notice the project if they're going to change the request in any way, re notice, publish all that stuff. But it takes time. I don't feel like a couple of months would be sufficient.

Yep. So I would what I'm hearing is I would rather you we don't do anything on this tonight unless we have to have a motion to not approve.

We don't want a

denial. You may consider withdrawing your application.

That's true. They could reapply for something new whenever they wanted.

I think we've given feedback the concerns. I mean there could be a study session down the road but we also have a lot of other topics we're dealing with right now so that could be a ways out.

So I think we would just want to withdraw tonight then.

Alright. Do you get anything more than that on the public record?

I think that would be sufficient.

Alright. And I never closed the public hearing. I think I need to close the public hearing. The public hearing is closed. The applicant has withdrawn and we will pick this up at, some point in the future when the applicant comes back. Alright. Thank you. Appreciate all the work that's gone into it so far. Alright. I'm gonna pause this just for a second as we're transitioning out.

Shannon Milliken was one of the individuals who helped us get resolution done tonight. We don't really have a place to have someone come up and talk about that but Shannon I want to give you a couple minutes if you're willing to just come up. This would be a good time.

We need to know, like, where in public comment it goes or whatever. So I appreciate it.

Just name your locations the record.

Alright. So good evening, mister mayor, council members, Erie residents, and community members. My name is Shannon, and my pronouns are she, her. My daughter attends the most diverse school in Erie with over 20 plus languages spoken in homes. And so while I do not reside in Erie, I'm very invested as a community member who has been bringing forward the voices of families of color in Erie who have been navigating real and valid fears around public safety due to ICE activity more broadly.

Those fears don't come from events here in Erie, but they are still lived experiences. And for too long, we weren't acknowledged because nothing had happened here. But the fear was still shaping how families move through this community. Tonight is was a really important moment for your town, and I want to acknowledge how we got here. The truth is that there is division in Erie.

That division has created real rift, which is why when I come to testify, it was never to deepen that divide, but it was to bridge it, to show how choices, words, and even silence shape the experiences of families who are already carrying so much. So over the last twelve weeks, we've seen that a different approach can lead to different outcomes. I want to honor the families who trusted me with their stories and those who didn't share details but trusted me to carry forward their truth. Some spoke openly. Others simply said, yes, that's what we're feeling too.

And every conversation or moment of hesitation or courage pointed to the same thing, that this proclamation mattered. Their safety mattered, and their belonging mattered. And the trust they placed in me, even with limited details, is something that I hold with deep responsibility. This process wasn't simple or immediate. We invited you to the table, and it did take a time before there was willingness to lean in.

And, you chose to engage in conversation. From there, you asked for feedback, and then came the harder part, acknowledging harm, recognizing that the way things have always been done does not work for residents in marginalized communities, and accepting accountability for the impact of words and actions. Even with disagreement, you chose to not fully disengage. Ultimately, you chose to do what was right for this community in your town, even when you didn't personally identify with the experiences that were being shared. You are setting an example for what children will see for kids like my little girl who was here earlier who are finally being shown that their experiences matter.

This moment doesn't erase the harm that has happened in the past, specifically to other communities in this town who have experienced exclusion, dismissal, or feeling of not being safe. There's history here of residents feeling unseen or unsupported, and that context does matter. There's also a history in this town of not always wanting to elevate the voices and experiences of marginalized communities. And I think this moment demonstrates is that when we choose to uplift those communities, it doesn't take away from anyone. It actually benefits everyone.

Now that there is a proclamation addressing the fears of those that are most impacted in clear communication from town leadership and the Erie PD about what can and cannot be done, the community has a foundation to move forward. It creates the conditions for people to organize, to share resources, and to build trainings that strengthen the broader community, including the many allies who make up a large part of this town. What's happening tonight is a step forward, and it's also a demonstration to ourselves and to each other that this community can move forward even when we don't always agree or share the same lived experiences. When we choose to build bridges, we create conditions for connection and empathy. And how we show up in those spaces shapes the outcomes we're able to create together.

What you have given families tonight is something their bodies can finally respond to. I also want to acknowledge that I'm over three minutes, and we had somebody want to testify or give me their time. Is that Okay that I go over?