Erie council narrows focus on Page property; schedules deeper study of Village at Coal Creek options

Mayor Moore and Erie Town Council spent the bulk of their Sept. 23 meeting on the Village at Coal Creek, the 46.5‑acre parcel purchased in 2023 with a staff‑described roughly 50/50 mix of TNAC (trails/open space) and ARPA funds.

Senior planner Ali Burkhalter and consultant DIG Studio presented three preliminary ‘‘bubble’’ concept options that allocate land among parks and open space, a 150‑foot Coal Creek setback, and areas held in an agricultural‑holding zoning category that could later be considered for housing. DIG Studio principal Bill Vitek highlighted constraints—floodplain, easements, a high‑tension power line and an existing pond—and said each option preserves about nine acres for a parks/open‑space facility while varying the acreage shown for potential development or holding zoning.

The options prompted heated questions from council members and public speakers. Clifford Swart and OSTAB (the open‑space board) told council the concepts risk failing the town’s open‑space criteria—minimum contiguous parcels and minimum width—and urged an option to keep the site entirely as open space. Staff and counsel responded that code section 10‑6‑3’s open‑space criteria were considered and that, in staff’s view, the proposed open‑space areas can meet the standards if configured to maintain contiguity with the Coal Creek corridor.

On financing and intent, staff said the land purchase and reporting to ARPA are complete; Finance Director Sarah Hancock told council the ARPA project is closed for reporting after purchase, which gives the town flexibility about future use of the land so long as ARPA rules are satisfied. Council also discussed a possible land swap or replenishing the TNAC/ARPA funding if the town decides not to build housing on the site.

Transportation and technical questions were flagged as outstanding. LSC consultant Chris McGranahan said a single access point could be sufficient for 150–200 residential units but that lane configurations and turn lanes depend on finalized trip generation and land‑use decisions. Staff added that Cheeseman Street likely serves only as emergency access and that permanent access will require further engineering and coordination with ditch companies and adjacent neighborhoods.

In parallel, the council heard a facilities feasibility and pre‑design presentation proposing a parks and open‑space campus on the site that would reuse the existing house and barn for administrative and meeting space and add a new operations/fleet building with covered vehicle storage, EV charging infrastructure and solar‑ready roofing. Consultant cost estimates presented concept construction numbers (a $14.2M highlighted construction figure in the packet and an overall budget that included alternates of roughly $16M–$18.8M). Staff said approximately $1.2M for full design was planned to come from the Public Facilities Impact Fund in 2025 and that a design appropriation exists for the initial design phase.

Council did not select a concept. Multiple council members said they were not ready to move to zoning or final direction, and several asked staff to return with more options, clearer delineations of open‑space parcels that meet UDC criteria, and alternatives for preserving the most sensitive views and habitat. Council directed staff to continue refining the options and scheduled a study session on Nov. 18 for OSTAB, staff, the consultants and council to explore additional options and technical follow‑up.

What’s next: staff will reconvene stakeholders, refine the open‑space parceling and view‑shed protections, complete transportation and pond/embankment checks where needed, and return to council at the Nov. 18 study session with a narrowed set of options and more precise cost and zoning implications.

Representative quote: “We would go back to our stakeholders to the community and Planning Commission with a final concept plan that’s kind of been narrowed down,” said Senior Planner Ali Burkhalter, describing next steps.

The council meeting moved to other agenda items after the discussion; no zoning or final vote on the concept options was taken.