Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you

Mayor Mrakas, All the Parker planning Commission meeting of may 28 2026 to order at 7pm would you please stand and join us for the pleasure. OK, thank you. Roll call. Absent is Eliana. Seated for Eliana is Lisa. Absent is Nick. Seated for Nick is Jenny. And absent is Brett. All right. Are there any additions to or deletions from the agenda, Bryce? No, sir. Okay. Prove the minutes. Are there any additions or corrections to the minutes of March 12th, 2026?

I have none.

Okay. Do we have a motion?

I move that we approve the minutes of March 12th, 2026. I'll second it.

It's been moved by Ruthann, seconded by Angela that we approve the minutes of march 12th 2026 and i'll call the question lisa hi jenny hi angela hi ruthanne hi eric hi jane hi the chair is i it's unanimous all right next on the item 7a public meeting and ordinance number 3.372.7 A bill for an ordinance to amend sections 13.02.020, subsection 1303.030, I-5C, subsection 1303.050D, sections 1303.040, 1305.020, 1305.030, and 1305.050. Subsections 1308.110, 1308.120, and 130920 section 4 130930B3 and 130940D and section 13030 1308.090 and 13.08.130 of the Parker Municipal Code concerning updates to the land development ordinance.

and we will open the public meeting at 7 0 3 and we'll turn it over to Bryce thank you chair I apologize about the length of that title so before you tonight our proposed changes to the land development ordinance that we've Generally, called the land development ordinance clean up, as you may recall, the new ldo was adopted on me in May of 2024 even then we knew that we'd have to come back and clean up some things you can't write that much code and not have missed something. So here we are it took a little while, but we're back we've been implementing implementing it monitoring it over time. Staff and the development community have identified some issues and or conflicts and that's purpose of this is to clean that up. Several items proposed are just minor changes. And then we had this study session with PC and TC last summer. So I'm not going to go through every change, as we would be here all night, but I am going to kind of get the highlights for you. So first of all, clarity and cleanup provide additional clarity on definitions, some cleanup of references in the document, and some overall language in some of the items. One of the bigger changes is the framework plan subdivision, proposing it as an optional process. So framework plan is what replace would call the sketch plan so for a single-family neighborhood There are three steps Framework plan preliminary plan final plan you will still see the final Some cleanup and accessory uses. We moved the following standards from use-specific standards to accessory uses. They just ended up in the wrong bucket. Electrical vehicle charging stations, not a primary use in the town. They are ancillary. You'll see them in parking lots for businesses like King Soopers and gas stations and that kind of stuff, but they are not a freestanding use. Residential daycare, obviously the home is a primary use. The daycare is a secondary. then parking lots and parking garages with certain exceptions are always accessory to use and then there was a conversation about the use specific standards and what applied in PDS what applied in states and straight zone districts and what applied in both so accessory use standards that apply Urban agriculture and drive through facility setbacks from residential. Use specific standards applicable town wide, including these are group homes so group homes are significantly driven by federal law, so we can have different rules and different neighborhoods. school use specific standards schools are in typically in pds and so those standards should apply everywhere microbrewery distillery and winery requirements for storage of raw and spent materials that was something that as a conversation we decided should just be an across the board and then the rules for bed and breakfast are inconsistent Then we have uses not permitted in PEs. This is carry over from the original, I should say the original, the previous land development ordinance and was developed with significant input from our legal department. So these uses are only permitted in certain straight zone districts and these are light industrial. So natural medicine business sexually oriented businesses and pop brokers so they're they're pretty limited in the town as to where they can go. Next is assembly uses. Assembly uses and PDS must meet the requirements of light industrial conservation overlay district, for those of you that are familiar with that light industrial overlay district is. extensively think of 20 mile to Parker road and from low South to the post office so that's generally the area and extensively their further limits on there in terms of the size of certain assembly uses so think. Things like churches schools movie theaters kind of the list of those types of things. The second one is title 32 metro district rules apply. Short background on the title title 32 metro district rules so metro districts in the town of Parker are usually a funding mechanism to pay for improvements, so they make their money back to property taxes to pay off the debt. 2008 in particular when this rule came into effect a lot of businesses were going out of business and a lot of non-profits were buying these buildings and not paying property taxes meaning that the metro district couldn't fund their debt and so this requirement says you're fine to go in there but you have to work with the metro district to make sure that the metro districts hold Um, last one is that we changed daycare square footage requirements. Um, they inadvertently were lower than other assembly uses, and we're not really reflective of anything in the market. So they are now the same as same rules as churches, schools. landscaping the town has hired a consultant who's going to rewrite the landscape in whole to address a number of issues with penn state laws and xeric designs and some of those others kind of modernize it that said the this current change is to remove allowances for sod and right-of-way and non-residential sites And in residential buffers, this complies with the new state statute, that's 24. So, we're starting with kind of clarifying that, but not to worry. There's more to come. Sign code clarifying language allowed for 3 flagpoles per lot up from 2. There's always three flagpoles on a lot, so I don't know why we chose two. So we're going to match what is common practice. Allow for lighted signs in the downtown east zone district where adjacent to Parker Road. So downtown east does not allow internally lit signs. However, a portion of downtown east sits right on Parker Road. So this would allow those businesses facing Parker Road to have lighted signs. Maintenance clarify the science must be trash be also had the definition of what traction debris is this is very helpful for our code of compliance focus in terms of When they come to a site and have a conversation with folks The vested rights so vested rights So best rates are not created in the town until permits have been approved and substantial expenses have been incurred. So that's at the point where the town is obligated to allow you to have the rights of property. Right now, basically it's in perpetuity. This would change into the vested rights or three years vesting period. this was worked out with our attorney's office and it reflects what state law is so it would be three years unless mutually extended beyond that town has been lucky we really haven't had any problem with that historically because things tend to happen pretty quickly around here so Number 12, financial security. Town has been having a number of conversations with HOA's metro districts. When developers complete their landscaping, they've been handing them over to the HOA's metro districts and some of them say they don't know that they received it. And sometimes they're handing them over before the town's inspected them. So now it becomes the HOA's problem to fix. So the new code does its best to address this. There's no perfect solution, but basically there's a one year probationary period for the developer for landscaping improvements. So if it dies in the first year, they have to replace it. And it does require the acceptance from the . So we're hoping that helps with some of those conversations. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend Town Council approve the amendments as proposed. As always, I'm available for any questions you may have.

Questions for Bryce?

I have a couple.

Yeah, I can see that. We'll have to get to that next week.

The first one I had is we created a new definition membership club, and I was wondering why we did that.

So that actually came from the previous code, and so membership club is a permitted use for the loan districts. And so we created that to be clear as to what that is. So when people are looking up, membership club can mean different things to different people. So that's why we defined it.

OK. Another question I had was we made a change in the bed and breakfast rules. in that we no longer are requiring owner occupation or occupation by a residential manager. I was wondering why we dropped that in the revision.

So that actually, it's the unfortunate thing about having a slice and only the changes. That portion is actually in the definition of a bed and breakfast. So bed and breakfast does require it to be owner occupied. It was just in two places in the code. And so we took it out of the condition, but it is still a requirement because bed and breakfast is defined in requiring that.

I didn't go back and reread all the definitions.

That is, like I said, one of the challenges with looking at the pieces and parts, not as a part of the program.

And the broken links in the chart, that was just, in our packet, was just a formatting error, I'm assuming.

Yeah, since it was a PDF, those links will be, when they're uploaded into online, those will work.

Okay. I think those were my big questions. I found a bunch of typos which I gave to Bryce, but she's going forward to legal, so I don't need to go over all those. I appreciate that. Those are just typos, but those are the ones that I had the big questions on.

Okay.

I have an additional question. I apologize I did not bring this up in advance. This question I have is on page seven, in case anybody's following. It's under the vested rights on page six. It's towards the top. And I'm curious, I know that the site plan has been able to be adjusted by the planning director for some time. We just generally don't see site plans. And so now in the section above it, it's saying that the planning director can determine changes if they're minor, even if they're more than 15% of the approved plan. And I'm curious about how that works. I mean, minor is very subjective if it's minor less than 15% or above 15%, if that makes sense.

The question makes sense. I'm trying to find the text.

Yeah, it's page 7 to A2.

In situations where subsection 1 above does not apply.

It mirrors the language below in the site plan. But the site plan, again, is more commercial. And we don't generally see those. And so I'm wondering why we've made that very vague change to planning development adjustment.

It does appear very subjective.

It's subjective in the site plan, but we haven't seen those. And oftentimes, those have more technical stuff that maybe we don't need to see. Director doing whatever he wants with an adjustment just or she whatever she wants to do with an adjustment doesn't really sound copacetic to me.

So I will review that language, but the intent of that is, is that we have the code and certain PDs also have different rules in it. And so it's really to allow the planning director to kind of solve for that where there's a conflict. But I understand where I'm reading the language. So I'll do a little digging on that to see it.

OK. But you're asking us to request or advise approval of this without having that language sort of

finalized or specified so so my recommendation would be um if the commission is concerned about that to do it as a condition of approval um so that staff um that you're concerned about the language in a2 and its staff revise as necessary that would be us thank you

Would that be similar, too, with the typos and other changes that were brought up as well, to have those as conditions? I wouldn't.

You can do what you wish, but yeah. Isn't that a matter of course? Yeah, we'll fix that.

I'm not sure why we're doing a conditional recommendation when it's a matter of course to correct those things.

The typos, yeah.

The typos, yeah. This other one is substantive in terms of a question being raised by the public commissioner.

In real terms, practicality, probably what is minor in nature. Probably we wouldn't object to any of that, but it's so vague that it makes me a little uneasy.

Okay. Other questions?

I have one, and it's not about the change in the vested rights section, so I guess tell me if this doesn't fit here. When it says that it looks like vesting starts when there's reasonable and substantial expenses, or lawful, reasonable, and substantial expenses, is there an actual number of expenses? Is it just?

No. It's determined by the courts. So that's language that the attorneys have pulled from previous court cases. You're right. I mean, substantial is very different between different organizations. But the courts ended up making that decision.

I think they have based it on percentages of the total project cost, that sort of thing. And they've used that as kind of a guidance.

Because it sounds like that's what starts your vesting period, right? That would start the clock on that three years. Right.

And that would be litigated if there was an issue. Sure.

All right. going to suggest that we do uh conditional approval uh not yet we don't do that yet that's discussion period after the comments okay you're right i got an order i got you thank you for keeping us under control all right any other questions i have a comment first i would just say being someone that is very new to this process

that if you try as hard as you can to stay away from acronyms and spell things out i think for clarity's sake someone reading that document that doesn't have that background which happens to me often where i'm like i wonder what that stands for so just you know keep that to

Anything else? Okay, as it is a public meeting, we always open it up to public comment. Anyone who wishes to comment can step forward to the microphone and state their name and address for the record. Good afternoon, friends.

Do you guys get people often?

I was expecting a few more people, and I didn't know I was getting too many people. Did you bring comment cards? Would you like to?

no all right thank you but thank you for coming yeah thank you uh so we will close the public hearing at 7 23 and commissioner discussion uh i see james point and it actually was something that tickled the back of my brain as well um

And I think we could resolve this by when we put through our, if the other commissioners also feel that this is something to think about, is we could make a motion that would say that we approve it with the condition that this section be, what would you want? Would you want it to be reviewed, deleted?

I'm open to discussion about that. I mean, it could be like 25%, right?

I think what you're looking for is more precise language that defines that role.

Rather than wherever the planning director decides it's minor. That is too vague. And I don't know that when a developer comes and says, hey, I've got this huge economic development it's going to really pump up the job in Parker that someone won't have impetus to make something minor.

Yeah.

If that makes sense. It does. The political pressure to do something that may not be minor that could be in the gray area. It's not that I don't trust the planning director, it's just, it is too, like I said, site plan, I'm okay with, for whatever reason, plan development, I would like, and I know a lot of those have come to us procedurally, and it probably is a pain procedurally for those to come through us. I get that, at the same time, wherever determines the changes minor in nature is too vague for me. So if someone wants to put a percentage on it that is higher than 15% or continue to go through planning commission if it's a difference of more than 15%, I'm open to either of those, whatever other people think. But I think as it stands, it's too vague in my eyes.

So the 15% applies to boundaries, roadways, alignments, open space tracks, park sites, and similar elements does not apply to the number of units. I think units are addressed elsewhere. They are. As I recall. But I think that you have a really good point. I'm trying to think how we could change that to give them some sort of... I mean, the easiest way to... Oh, we could ask them to add a definition of minor in nature.

But if they could do that, then the planning director wouldn't have to determine that.

Well, he would have to determine that it meets that definition. Right now, the definition is 15%. No, the definition is where 15% doesn't apply... The planning director determines the changes minor in nature. We could request that language be added to this section that says that a minor change be defined, a definition for a minor change be provided so that the director has guidance on what would and would not be permissible for him to take away from planning commission. Does that make sense?

Yeah.

That sounds complicated, Ruthann. Personally, it would be easier if we just delete that one line. If you would like to make a definition, I'm down with that. I'm amenable to either of those.

I don't know that I can come up with a minor, definition of minor, given the broad range of items that this could apply to. What's the definition? And I think therein lies the problem.

Bryce?

Can I suggest that the motion be, that it be recommended that the section.

1303040C1A2. You're on it. Yeah.

So either be minor, either be clarified or defined in Section 130304.

We could say clarified or defined, and if unable to do so, be deleted. How does that work for you? Yes, yes, yes, yes. How about other folks? I think that makes sense. As I draft this language.

It could also be that I'm more paranoid than everybody else here, and nobody else agrees

I agree with you. I think that's an important consideration. But I think also we need to be a little careful sometimes with making too many definitions that we pigeonhole ourselves and don't allow people to do what they are put in position to do.

I certainly get the concern with, you know, allowing those minor changes, because those minor changes could stack up and you have a situation where it's no longer the original that was approved or reviewed.

And I don't think it has anything to do with trusting someone in that position at all. I mean, we trust the expertise. I'm speaking for myself. I'm sure I'm speaking for the other commissioners. But I think that's someplace where some

It has been my experience that most planning and development adjustments are less than 15%. And so if it's barely over 15%, it's procedurally difficult time-wise, maybe not as difficult technically. And I understand that's an imposition on a developer. The time is money. And I don't want it to be that vague. Do you want to repeat your proposed?

I can, I can propose that we're ready for a motion. Any other comments or concerns or discussion issues?

I think my comment is vague, but I feel like defining minor or clarifying minor will be difficult. i agree so i kind of default to what angela said this person's in that position to make you know make those calls so i'm not sure i agree that it needs any more i would agree with jenny that you know we

the council and the town manager hires staff competent staff to do their jobs and that was what i was trying to get at earlier is that as a matter of course i don't know who legal is now jim fits like most other documents you know they'll go through it and the paras professionals will go through it and check it and double check it i think that's an expectation of the town staff and if somebody goes outside those boundaries well then the town manager has a problem and they need to do something about that to me that's line and staff you know the That's why that relationship moves. Not us. We're not in the middle of that. And it says very clearly in our guidelines, we're not to direct the staff to do this, that, or the other. And that's Ryan and I. So I do not see.

So I totally get what you're saying here, Gary. But here's where I disagree, is that in suggesting to town council, which is all what we do is recommend, I don't think it's out of line for us to recommend that they take another look at this particular section. We're not directing staff to do anything in a particular way or not. What we're saying is an ordinance that we've been asked to review and make a recommendation to town council on that we recommend town council be very aware of what they're doing in this case and of the discretion that they're giving to staff. And if town council was good with that, town council will put this through the way it's written. They have that ability and if and if they say oh, you know looking at this Maybe this is something we need to take a look at that's something Town Council can do But I think that by making this conditional recommendation We're alerting Town Council to the fact that this is an issue. They may want to look at That's all it really does. It's all our our motion does and because of that and I'm okay with was supporting Jane in this concern and putting that kind of a condition on it. I just want to also say how excited I was that we are requiring the schools to provide adequate drop off. I was so happy to see that for picking up and queuing up because that has been such an issue. And I was also thrilled that the The definition of non-functional turfgrass requirements was in there, and I'm just really happy and excited for that to go forward. So I wanted to add those to my comments in addition to dealing with this particular issue.

Not to be a naysayer, but it's just my night for that. There's never been a school built that has enough drop-off.

I know.

And how many schools do we have across the United States? A million or some? They don't have it.

I know.

None in this district, none in Cherry Creek.

No.

I don't care where you go.

At least it becomes officially their problem.

I watch moms back out of their driveway, back down the street to the school and go right back. I know, it's ridiculous. 100 yards away.

It's ridiculous. And wait until they get to the entrance before the child actually gets out of the car. Yeah.

So, anyways. Yeah, no, I get it. Just my, that's always been a peeve of mine. Me too. Not the parking, it's more the Christmas.

But the idea that they shall provide adequate, I just love those words. It can be. It can be, yes.

Okay. I never imagined this morning this is the way this discussion was going to go. So anyways, there's no further comments. Do we... I'm trying to remember, Bryce. Do we have to do the written ordinance and then not pass, or do we just start with the one with conditions? So you can start with the motion with conditions, and if it passes, then it passes.

If it doesn't, then you do the one with conditions.

Okay. So may I make a motion?

Certainly.

All right. I move that the Planning Commission recommend Town Council make the amendments as listed packet with the following condition that for section 13.03.040 subsection C1A2 regarding changes that are determined to be minor in nature that the term minor be clarified or defined or if that is found to be impractical that they that that section be deleted yes I believe

C2A2.

Is it C2A2? Hang on. I'm sorry. You are absolutely right. C2A2. Thank you for checking that for me. So, Friendly Event 13.03.040 C2A2. Okay. Is there a second?

Jane will second.

Okay. It's been moved by Ruthann, seconded by Jane that Planning Commission of our Grand Town Council

to amend the sections as noted in your packet concerning from the parker and municipal code concerning updates to the land development ordinance with the following conditions and we read your yeah that that does under section 13.03.040 subsection c2a2 uh that changes that are minor in nature to be determined by the planning uh director

be clarified what is minor be clarified defined or if that's found to be impractical that that section be deleted okay i'll call the question uh lisa hi jenny no angela no ruthanne hi eric no jane hi chairs

Now somebody makes a new motion to approve it all.

We have to have another motion. I move the Planning Commission recommend Town Council to amend the sections as noted in our packet of the Parker Municipal Code concerning updates to the land development ordinance. I second.

Moved by Eric, I couldn't hear you. Jenny?

Second.

Okay. Moved by Eric, seconded by Jenny, the Planning Commission recommend Town Council amend the sections of the land development ordinance listed in the packet. of the park municipal code concerning updates to the land development ordinance call the question uh lisa hi hi okay uh jenny hi angela hi who's that no eric hi jane no and chairs motion passes thank you for indulging me you know it's important to raise these issues all right next item is the Planning Commission item item 8 Bryce you want to talk about that please sure as you're aware the

We've got part 2050 comprehensive plan. We've been working on it for a while now. Um, we are looking to schedule study sessions with both you and town council. We have a study cap study session set with town council for June 8th. That the request is to have a special meeting special setting session meeting on June 4th to allow the planning commission to hear. the presentation about the park for 2050 comp plan in advance of town council so we can forward any comments you may have today and so it will be required to be a motion to have that special meeting comments questions i booked it yeah that's good thank you to town staff for alerting us in advance yes yeah

for calendaring purposes.

I move that we hold a special meeting on Thursday, June 4th, 2026 at 530 p.m. at Town Hall to review the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. I will second.

Moved by Ruthann, seconded by Eric that Planning Commission has a special meeting on June the 4th at 530 p.m. at Town Hall to review the 2050 Comprehensive Plan. All right, call to question. Lisa? Aye. Jenny?

Aye.

Angela? Aye. Ruthann? Aye. Eric? Aye. Jane? Aye. Chair's aye, passes unanimously.

Anything else for Bryce? Bryce, you for us? If anybody's interested, June 1st study session before town council, drone delivery service. So a discussion of land use policy and other policies. associated with that so if i was watching yeah online or in person be there be square okay i guess if there's nothing else from the group we will adjourn at 7 42.