Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use Development topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council narrows Village at Coal Creek options, drops proposed parks facility location and asks staff for feasibility work on open space, housing and a church
Summary
After an extended study‑session, Erie council removed the parks & open‑space facility siting from the Village at Coal Creek property, directed staff to pursue feasibility work to preserve highest‑value open space and to test whether a church or affordable housing (30–60% AMI) could be feasible on the remaining developable acreage, and scheduled follow‑up analyses and an RFP process if development proceeds.
Erie — In a lengthy study‑session discussion about the 46.5‑acre Village at Coal Creek property, the Town Council removed a specific plan to site a parks and open‑space facility on the parcel and asked staff to return with more focused options that preserve the most valuable contiguous open space while testing feasibility for alternate uses.
Senior planner Ali Burke Halter walked the council through a series of options (1–3) that vary how much of the property would remain in agricultural‑holding zoning versus reserved open space, and presented additional concepts (Options 4 and 5) that were requested by OSTAB and others. Staff showed viewshed analyses, massing sketches (from single‑family cottages to 2–3‑story townhomes), and cost estimates for a parks and open‑space facility: an estimated $17–19 million to build on Village at Coal Creek versus roughly $40 million to expand or retrofit the existing LAWS facility, a difference staff attributed to retrofit complexity and floodplain constraints at the LAWS site.
Mayor raised an idea to explore a land swap or partnership with Saint Scholastica to keep the church in Old Town while potentially accommodating some parking and to explore whether Catholic Charities or another partner could deliver affordable housing at the site in the 30–60% AMI range. Staff cautioned that feasibility and funding are not yet established and that any development partner selection would require an RFP. OSTAB representatives reiterated a preference for maximizing contiguous open space and questioned whether development would deliver equivalent open‑space value.
Council members also discussed transportation and floodplain constraints: the Lower Boulder Ditch floodplain covers a large swath of the property and the Cheeseman Street crossing requires a conditional map revision (CLOMAR/LOMAR) with FEMA for structural modifications, a process staff said could take many months and add cost.
After discussion, the council took a show‑of‑hands on siting the parks & open‑space facility at Village at Coal Creek and recorded enough 'thumbs down' to remove that specific facility‑location option from immediate consideration. Council directed staff to craft an expanded comparison table (including a suggested Option 6), analyze tradeoffs, confirm which open‑space strips would deliver contiguous value for the Trails Natural Areas Fund, and test feasibility of a smaller development footprint that might accommodate a church or affordable housing. Staff said next steps would include outreach (community open house), Planning Commission review and, if development proceeds, an RFP to select a development partner.
What’s next: staff will return with an expanded options table, feasibility analyses for the proposed alternate uses (including a cost and traffic review related to access/bridge constraints), and details on funding, TNAF implications and any legal constraints for changing intended uses or reimbursements.
Representative quote: "If we build a new parks and open space facility on the Village at Coal Creek, it's roughly $19,000,000 to do that," staff said; "If we go and touch LAWS, ... it would be $40,000,000 because we're deconstructing some things to build other things."
