City Council - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the Westminster City Council meeting of July 13th, 2026. Please stand and join us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you for joining us this evening. Please remember that our meetings are governed by the rules of decorum posted inside chamber doors. We ask all attendees to maintain a respectful environment. No disruptions, threats, or audible expressions of support or opposition are permitted. Signs and placards are prohibited and all attendees must remain seated in designated areas. If you wish to speak during public comment, please sign up in the lobby. Sign up closes at 6.45 p.m. City Clerk, roll call please.

Present. Councilor Azadi? I'll come back to Councilor Azadi. Councilor Haught? Councilor Ireland? I'm gonna check with the AV team on that side of things. Councilor Johnson?

Here.

Mayor Pracham Nirmala?

Here.

Okay, and I will, give me a minute on those.

Thank you. Folks, hold tight just a moment here.

Councillor Azadi?

Yes.

Councillor Haught? Yes. And Councillor Ireland? Yes. Okay, they're all present now.

Thank you so much. Is there a motion to allow Councillor Haught, Ireland and Azadi to attend tonight's meeting remotely? Mayor Pro Tem.

I move to allow Councilors Haught, Izadi and Arlen to attend tonight's meeting remotely. Thank you. Councilor Johnson?

I second that motion.

Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Another thought, City Clerk Fitch, I can't see when folks are pressing the conference.

I just raised my hand.

Folks might need a razor. Sorry folks, we're having an unusual evening.

Did I pop on?

No, you're called seat 11. All right, folks, I promise this is unusual evening. All right, do I have a motion to approve the minutes? Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve the minutes of the, it's been a while, June 22nd City Council meeting as presented.

Thank you. And Mayor Pro Tem. Second. Thank you. All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Thank you. And then Councilor Johnson for another motion.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to table item 12C, first reading of Councilor's Bill number 26 to the regular meeting on July 27th.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Councillor Brahas? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? All right. All those in favor?

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Thank you so much. Okay, well, we apologize just briefly for the different technical difficulties we've had tonight. So thank you for bearing with us. With that, we have one presentation this evening. Councilor Johnson will present the proclamation for Disability Pride Month. Thank you, Councilor Johnson.

If you are here for Disability Pride Month, can you please join me up here at the front? I have folks from the Arc of Jefferson County, the Arc of Adams County, and Representative Goldstein, if you'd like to join us as a former special ed teacher. And anyone else who wants to join us to celebrate Disability Pride Month. Yeah, I saw you, come on over here. Yeah, Brent, you wanna get on this side and then we got Jose on that side. Perfect, and then I will just allow you all to briefly introduce yourself. So we'll just pass it down the line.

Hello, I am Tina Jansen from the Arc of Adams County.

Jose Torres from the Arc of Adams County. Hi, I'm Liesl Thomas. I'm the Director of Child and Family Advocacy for the Arc of Jefferson, Clear Creek, and Gilpin Counties.

I'm simply a citizen who cares about equal access and accessibility for all.

Hi, Ellen Buckley, retired ADA discrimination attorney.

Lori Goldstein, state rep, and I'm a former special education provider in Adams 12.

Thank you all for being here. It's a really distinct honor I have of not only presenting this great proclamation, but with so many friends that I get to see all the time and work with. So thank you for being here tonight. So I will present this proclamation on behalf of the mayor and the city of Westminster. whereas Disability Pride Month will be celebrated nationwide in July of 2026 with the theme, The World Works Better With Us, and Colorado will mark the occasion alongside the Americans with Disabilities Act anniversary, and whereas when people with disabilities are included, respected, and supported in our communities, schools, workplace, healthcare, transportation, and public life, and highlights how disability-led innovations like curb cuts, closed captions and voice-to-text have improved experiences for all. And whereas Westminster supports disability rights and accessibility, and whereas Westminster supports the use of inclusive language and challenges the stereotypes in the community, and whereas Disability Pride Month is a month-long celebration that recognizes the identities and experiences of disabled individuals promoting disability as a natural and valuable part of human diversity and not something to be hidden or fixed. And whereas Disability Pride Month challenges stereotypes, promotes equity, affirms that people with disabilities should be seen, valued, and included, exactly as they are, and as a reminder that the fight for full inclusion is ongoing and that celebrating disability is a part of a more just society. And whereas Disability Pride Month encourages people to take pride in who they are and aims to create a more inclusive and understanding society, therefore I, Jack Johnson, on behalf of the Mayor, Claire Carmelia, Mayor of Westminster and City Council and the staff do hereby proclaim July 2026 as Disability Pride Month and encourage the residents to recognize and celebrate the important contributions of disabled individuals. Signed this 13th day of July 2026. Thank you.

that maybe two individuals to join us on the other side of counselor johnson balance it out a little bit there we go all right everyone look at me real quick right here ready one two three one two three thank you guys

Thank you all so much. That brings us to public comment. And this evening, if there are no objections from council, I would like to invite our city manager Andrews to make a statement before public comment begins as is pertinent to this evening. Thank you so much, City Manager.

Mayor, thank you for the opportunity to provide a brief comment before tonight's public comment opportunity for the members of our community. I would like to take a moment to address some concerns that we've heard from residents regarding the future of the park site at the corner of West Cliff and Westminster Boulevard. The city has been working to deliver on the commitments we've made with the 3H paramedics and pavement measure to build two new fire stations, including one in central Westminster in this neighborhood area. We're also in separate discussions to bring a tennis center to Westminster. In these preliminary site studies, staff discussed the viability of the Westcliff site. These were early project ideas and were very exploratory in nature. I want to be clear tonight for any members of our community here or listening that I've instructed staff that we are not moving forward with either a fire station or a tennis facility at the Westcliff site. I've asked staff to cease the evaluation of this location and instead focus our efforts on identifying and assessing alternative sites elsewhere in the city. As we continue this work, we remain committed to finding the right location to meet the fire department's long-term needs, bring tennis to Westminster while being thoughtful neighbors and engaging our community early and transparently throughout the process. So to our Westcliff residents and neighbors, Thank you for making your voices heard. Your input matters. It's been heard, and it has influenced the direction we're taking on these two important projects.

Thank you so much, City Manager. And with that, of course, you are all invited and welcome to make public comment if you are present. Public comment is an opportunity for the public to address City Council on any issue or item pertaining to city business unless there is a public hearing on the topic. Tonight, there are three public hearings, one regarding the official development plan for the pros uplands filing three block one, tract A and block three, a public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment and consideration of a preliminary development plan amendment for Mandalay Gardens, tract 10, lot two, and a public hearing on the 2026 community development block grant annual action plan. If you are here to speak on any of those items, please hold your comments until the public hearing is called. During public comment, each speaker will have up to three minutes for their comments. Staff will follow up with questions and outstanding issues. City Clerk, would you please report the number of email and voicemail comments received and the number of individuals signed up to speak and call the first speaker to the podium.

Tonight, this evening, we received five voicemails, or I'm sorry, we received five emails, one voicemail, and we have eight people signed up to speak. Our first speaker is Darcy Hassler.

Welcome, thank you. Sorry, I'm used to being a teacher and projecting, this is weird for me using a microphone. Thank you for the opportunity to speak and based on city manager Andrew's information, this will just be a rehash of history. I'm against the proposal for the tennis complex being built, a little turn of history. At the turn of the millennium, I moved into Westcliff when my child was a toddler. I was thrilled that the land at the intersection of then Harlan Street and Westcliff Parkway had a sign from the city stating future Westcliff Park. I went to City Hall to review the plans for the future park. The plan showed parking, playground equipment, and some baseball fields. Somewhat later, Christopher fields was built again. Somewhat later, I noticed the future park sign was removed. I went to city hall to review the master plan again for the area. The person at the desk had trouble locating the information, but eventually did the master plan still showed her proposed playground and baseball diamonds. When I asked why the sign was removed, I was told there was insufficient income to develop the area. Imagine my surprise when shortly thereafter the Peter Pan Park, which was Westminster City Park and now McFall Park, was built. Could it be because the Weedy area was directly across from City Hall? This prompted another visit to City Hall to inquire how this large area could be developed when I was told that there were no funds available for parks. I was informed that it only came about from grants through Adams County. As an aside, in the intervening time period, a group of neighborhood moms successfully persuaded the original builders and HOA of the Westcliff neighborhood for a play structure, and a small playground was added to the green space in our neighborhood. A few years later, a sign was put up now desiccating that area at Westminster Boulevard and Westcliff Parkway as Westminster Open Space, and this seemed appropriate. For context, by this time, my toddler was now graduating high school. After years, that sign has been removed as well. Every day, I see many people enjoying the open space area for recreation. My concern is where the idea and drive for tennis courts came from. I would like to see a need. I overheard that Councilor Johnson plays tennis, but no one I know plays tennis anymore. They all play pickleball. I'm not a fan of that either, but that's not here nor there. There are nine parks within the city with one or more tennis courts. I am curious, what is their demand usage? Do we know? I understand that the additional fire station came from the passage of the 3-H ballot measure this last fall, which passed by 1,245 votes. However, it only passed by 114 votes in Jefferson County. There were two surveys about the ballot measure in the first go-around. It did not pass. I seem to recall the proposed station location being on the east side. I'm very sorry. Your time is up. I am up. I apologize. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Mark McCaller. Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening. Thanks for having the AC on. I'm here tonight to show my support for the great need of a quality convenience store at the location of the southeast corner of Wads Parkway and 108th. For nine years now, I commute back and forth to work going up and down the Wadsworth Parkway.

Sir, I'm very sorry. This is a public hearing item. And as city attorney, thank you.

Thanks, Mayor. Sir, you'll have an opportunity to testify as part of the public hearing. It's on tonight's agenda coming up after some of these preliminary items. Thank you, sir.

I promise you will get to speak. I'm sure. Thanks. Next speaker.

The next speaker is Eric Gardner.

I'm actually here for a public hearing, so they might have put me down.

Thank you.

The next speaker is James Fenimore.

Welcome.

Good evening, Mayor, council, staff, Jody, Barry, people, the public, police officers, and firemen. Been absent for a little while. Had to go out of state and take care of a dying brother. Really puts a place in life of how important things are. So for people that come here and speak, share their opinions, want to interact with you. They're taking their time. So that's a lot. People's time's a lot. Life is short. We need to enjoy it while we can, get the benefits and leave it behind some things that will help future generations and people and family. As I came back, you got to compliment the city for the fireworks show. Excellent job. Luckily, or unluckily, depending on how you look at it, Arvada canceled their show, so did Boulder, so Westminster was able to get a windfall and a bonus of spectators. I was up at 104th and Federal, and there were people from Boulder there, from Arvada, all up and down the front range. So it was great for a community to come together and enjoy that evening. So I hear before that one night, I remember bringing it to you guys' attention. There's the council and staff and management is that we were getting ready to celebrate our 250th. anniversary for our great country. Good job. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. It was a very questionable night because of the dryness. just proved what a great fire department we have and police department. They were able to monitor it with confidence and integrity and true professionalism. Appreciate our firemen, our policemen, our police chief and our fire chief. Thank you very much.

Thank you. The next speaker is Brock Chapman.

Welcome. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Brock Chapman. I'm with Shuck Chapman Companies and we are the owner developer of the Novera project at 136th and Huron. It's a mixed use project, which is where the new city fire station is going to be constructed. The last time I was here, I explained the two remaining contract issues that had to be resolved before we could close on the sale of the property with the city. But the good news, as you're hopefully aware, is those two items were resolved and the sale happened. Finalizing these outstanding issues to everyone's satisfaction and completing the sale took significant time, effort and commitment by several members of your city staff. Tonight, I'm here to publicly thank those members of your staff who made this fire station property sale possible. And yes, I understand that is their job, but they did go the extra mile in this case. If you don't believe me, just ask them. Quickly, I'm gonna read them out loud and then I'm gonna leave the list with your city clerk so you can reference it later. But special thanks to Philippe Brady and Alison Duran with the Real Estate Department, Seth Plath and Heath Klein with the Engineering Department, extra recognition for the efforts to John McConnell, Carson Beierhoff with planning, Greg Graham with the city attorney's office and Heather Cronenberg with the real estate department. Heather also had the unenviable role of playing the hub of the communication for this effort amongst everybody and playing basically chief cat herder on this effort. I'd also be remiss if I didn't extend special appreciation to Lindsey Kimball, Larry Doerr, and Jody Andrews for allowing the valuable time of their staff to stay engaged in this effort until the issues were resolved to everyone's satisfaction. There's several other exciting things happening at Novera. Many desirable retailers who will create significant sales tax and new jobs. I can come back some other time and talk about that but this is information I thought you should know so that you can give these folks some extra recognition the next time you see them. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

The next speaker is Ron Booth.

Welcome. Good evening and thanks for the opportunity. Hope everybody's staying cool and hydrated tonight. I come before the council tonight with a concern regarding growth, both residential and commercial, specifically with an eye towards future availability of water to support that growth. I'm not anti-growth, though some like the term responsible growth. But when I look at or think about responsible growth, it's from a perspective of living within our means with an eye towards future generations, not towards the immediate financial benefit and not whether or not something's within our financial means to execute that growth. But our availability of water and the impacts of growth on future availability and how that intersects with the hard and fast limitations that we face today are of troubling concern. Specifically, I speak in regard to Stanley Lake, the primary source of water for Westminster, North Glen, and the parts of Thornton. I think we all understand how impactful, persistent and repeated droughts have become over the past few decades and how that is impacting the stability of our ability to access that most essential, indispensable resource, clean water. This primary source for our community is unique compared to others in that most reservoirs, as their bottoms become layered with sedimentation, can simply be dredged to either restore its original capacity or to increase in capacity as might be needed. This is not the case with Stanley Lake. As many of us know, the sedimentation in the bottom of Stanley Lake protects us from the plutonium contamination from rocky flats from back in the 60s and 70s. And it's because of that danger that lurks below that certain water activities are prohibited there. It is because of the highly toxic plutonium that our primary water source cannot be dredged to restore capacity and cannot, certainly not, be dredged to increase its capacity. The city of Westminster is virtually exhausted available space for new development whether commercial or residential and either places increasing either of those increases demand on water supply that is already at extreme risk and that is before for any consideration of water thirsty data centers. I respectfully request that this council consider a ban on the future development of any data centers in part because of their strength on already stressed water resources.

Time? Yes, thank you.

Thank you very much for your time. Thank you.

The next speaker is Ellen Buckley.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. My name, as the clerk just said, is Ellen Buckley, and I'm here to request that you enact a ban on data centers. I was so glad to see Councilor Barajas asked you all to have a discussion on this. Given that there are currently no guardrails around AI centers at any level of government, a lengthy moratorium is necessary for our protection. The rush to build data centers is not because of our computer and phone use, it's because of the expansion of AI, which requires vast amounts of energy. Colorado does not have enough renewable energy for our current energy needs. Allowing new AI centers means all rate payers paying higher bills for increased fossil fuel infrastructure that also locks us into fossil fuels for decades and increases the climate crisis. At a time when many Westminster residents are struggling to pay their bills, allowing something that will increase energy bills is irresponsible. In addition to their vast energy needs, AI centers require large amounts of water, which we also don't have, especially here in the West where we've been in a mega drought for years. Proponents will say they'll use closed-loop cooling systems. Those systems are an unproven technology. They still require massive amounts of water and it pollutes the water used. Where do we want our limited water to go? Agriculture, housing, the ski industry, our rivers, or AI? No matter what cooling system is used, the heat created means the temperature near AI centers is vastly increased. Centers also create air and unbearable noise pollution and 24-7 light pollution. AI is currently being used to surveil us and is a harm, not a benefit to society. AI is killing our jobs as well, with AI being cited as the cause of 40% of layoffs in May. There's no plan by the tech bros or government for what to do with the massive economic disruption AI is causing and will increasingly cause. And contrary to claims these centers are job creators, permanent jobs range from about six to maybe two dozen jobs. Seven states are currently considering data center bans and in Colorado, Broomfield, Denver, Grand, Jeffco and Larimer counties have enacted moratoriums. Longmont bans new data centers over 100 megawatts of power usage. AI centers harm our communities both directly and indirectly, and Westminster should enact a long-term ban on any AI centers being built here. Thank you. Thank you.

Hey, thanks a lot. It's good to be here. Happy 250th. Hope everybody enjoyed their independence celebrations. I'm Tom Lampo, and I'm here to lift up Westminster to the Lord in prayer. So please join me in prayer. Heavenly Father, in Jesus' name, we ask that you would be here tonight with us to guide us in our thoughts and decisions. In your word, in Psalm 24, 1, it states, the earth is the Lord's and all its fullness, the world and those who dwell therein. You are always welcome in Westminster, but everything is already yours. So thank you for welcoming us into your presence. In the last few weeks, you have provided us with some moisture. As you know, we could choose more. Colorado has 14 wildfires burning. And late last month, we lost three firefighters. And yesterday, we lost another one. We lift up the families and friends of those firefighters to you and ask that you comfort them. The drought is affecting all of us. Your word is your truth, and we can find your name within it. Ephesians 3.20 states, now to him who is able to do immeasurably more than all we ask or imagine according to his power that is at work within us. Your love for us is beyond measure. You are the way out of all of our predicaments. Our asks and imagination can be great. None of us desire to be in the drought we are in. So we ask for more moisture and imagine our rivers and streams with flowing water and our lakes filled with water. Grant success to all those that are working to extinguish the fires and keep all of them out of harm's way. The same power which has brought us salvation is the same power that brings us moisture. Direct moisture to our state and be mindful where there is fire. We're celebrating 250 years as a nation. The nation has been well tried. We've experienced success and failure, good times and hard times. Express love to our fellow citizens and hatred. We are people and we all have fallen short of what you want us to be. On May 17th of this year, we rededicated our nation to you. Now, as we look forward, we claim Proverbs 3, 5 through 6, which states, trust in the Lord with all your heart and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways, acknowledge him and he will make straight your paths. We recognize you as Lord and creator of all things. Nothing escapes you. You know the beginning from the end. As we move forward as a nation in humility, we come before you and ask you to direct our paths so the nation can be everything you want it to be. You are our God and we are your people. In Jesus' name we pray, amen. Thank you guys, have a nice night.

Thank you so much. That was our final speaker. Thank you, speakers. I'll remind our audience to please respect the folks speaking so we can hear them properly. City Manager Andrews, do you have a report this evening?

Mayor, thank you. I do have a report this evening. If I could have the next slide, please. All right, this is an exciting update today. Westminster's very first and new stakeholder engagement platform has gone live. So it's Our Westminster, and this is our new engagement platform for residents to review projects, sign up for updates on those projects, and submit feedback directly to the city at our.westminsterco.gov. So this will allow residents to engage on our complex and longer-term projects and see the results of City initiatives and projects after completion so that we'll stay live on big projects. Our Westminster offers interactive tools, polls and forums for residents to inform and engage on those projects in an easy, accessible and transparent manner. And to start with, our pilot start is initially to house all drought watch content and large capital projects. So that's what went up today. And in the future, it will serve as the one-stop shop for all citywide projects and initiatives. So please do check it out, members of our community, city councillors. and let us know what you think. This will be a work in progress, but we are committed to transparent, open government in Westminster. And this is one of the ways that we're striving to do that is to give our residents a platform to connect with us on things that matter to them. Next slide, please. Along those lines, we're making it really exciting for this first rollout. So we do have a competition. If you visit our.westminsterco.gov, that brand new website that went up today, submit your best water saving tips and tricks to us, vote for your neighbor's ideas so you get to vote on those submissions, and the top vote getter will be awarded a prize each month. Prizes include a $200 smart sprinkler irrigation controller, a $200 garden in a box kit and a $100 premium rain barrel. So the highest use of water in Westminster and one of our speakers tonight spoke to our water in Westminster. We actually do have a very sound plan for water. Our water plan does match our land use plan. So we have enough water if folks keep conserving as they are today. And this is what the incentive is. Most of the water used in Westminster is irrigation water for your lawns. And so this is why we put this incentive package together. The grand prize at the end of the contest is a smart bathroom glow up. The staff said, city manager, you're gonna say glow up tonight, which includes a water wise toilet, faucet and shower head. So we'll get that installed to the grand prize winner. Next slide, please. Our next, I wanna highlight our next community update is August 18th. So this is Mayor Carmelia, city council members, and me, city manager. We provide a progress report on August 18th for all the things that this city and city council has directed to do in the first half of 2026. I wanna flag for folks, we do not have a community update schedule for July. We're gonna take a summer break and let folks regroup. The next update then is this one on August 18th. So we'll be providing a mid-year update on the implementation of City Council's vision and goals in 2026 and the work ahead for the second half of 2026. You can attend that meeting in person. or watch live stream. So in person it will be at right here at City Hall in this very council chambers Tuesday, August 18th. It starts at 5 30 and will be a full hour to 6 30. What we'll typically do is share out information on the progress to date and then we'll open it up for questions and discussion with our live participants. You can also stream that on Facebook or youtube.com at Westminster Co. Next slide please. All right, I have three slides on tonight's agenda. It is a full agenda this evening. We did start at six o'clock with an executive session to discuss a successor collective bargaining agreement between the city and our fraternal order of police lodge 25. So that did happen earlier this evening. We've heard our proclamation for Disability Pride Month. Next up will be consent agenda. There's one item, and then we have some public hearings tonight. The first one is a public hearing of an official development plan for Pro's Uplands project. The next public hearing and first reading of Councilor's Bill 22 is regarding a comprehensive plan amendment and consideration of a preliminary development plan amendment for Mandalay Gardens. and then a public hearing on the 2026 Community Development Block Grant or CDBG Annual Action Plan and the first reading of Councillor's Bill 23 regarding the supplemental appropriation of funding, CDBG funding. Next slide, please. Under new business, we have a number of items. First reading of Counselor's Bill 24 regarding the keeping of chickens. Second one will be first reading of Counselor's Bill 25 amending the 2026 budget and authorizing a supplemental appropriation to accept Jefferson County Emergency Communications Authority funds and Resolution 19 authorizing the addition of a Public Safety Geographic Information System or GIS system analyst and that will be entirely funded by those funds if Council so passes that appropriation. Next up will be first reading of Councillor's Bill 26 that updates the Westminster Municipal Code police regulations to align with Colorado state statutes and that is the item that Councillor Johnson requested be continued so that will happen then at our next meeting of Council which is on July 27th. Next will be first reading of councilor's bill 27 regarding a supplemental appropriation of repurposed capital project funds to the 2026 general fund operating budget for strategic plan outcomes and tasks implementation. So this is the work that city council directed, went through our capital plans and our capital plan project savings by delivering projects under budget. And those funds are being redeployed to implement city council's strategic plan outcomes and tasks for this year. Next up will be first reading of Councillor's Bill 28 to provide for traffic regulation through speed cameras in Westminster. Next slide, please. Finally, under old business, we have a second reading tonight. That's Bill 21, approving a development agreement with Gray Star Corporation for the development of Block D5 in downtown Westminster. And under our post-meeting study session, which will occur after this regular meeting this evening, we have two presentations, and these are both responding to City Council's direction. The first one is a proposed childcare provider property tax rebate program. And the second is a proposed ordinance to exempt infant formula, diapers, and feminine hygiene products from the city's sales and use tax. Next slide, please. All right, this week, some fun things happening on Tuesday. So tomorrow, July 14th, Planning Commission, City Hall, 7 to 9 p.m. Wednesday at our downtown Westminster location, Downtown Westminster Summer Concert Series in Central Plaza. Another one beginning at 5.30 and running through 7 p.m. that evening. Also a project meeting. This is an important one for many members of our community. The Erickson Senior Living folks are hosting a public meeting on their project proposal at the Butterfly Pavilion. So that's at 6252 West 104th Avenue, and that will run from 5.30 to 7 p.m. right at the Butterfly Pavilion. So if you have an interest in the Erickson Senior Living project being proposed, that's the meeting to attend to find out more about it. And then special permit and licensing board meeting right here in City Council Chambers at 6 to 8 p.m. on Wednesday. Next slide, please. On Friday, another Movies in the Park brought to us by our Parks, Recreation and Libraries Department and our Police Department. So we're showing Bad Guys 2 and also having Cuisine with Cops. That's right at Amherst Park this week and that is 13085 North Pecos Street and that will start at 7 and run right through till 10 p.m. on Friday. On Saturday, two events, another free car seat installation clinic provided by our professionals in our fire department. That's at Fire Station 2. That's the 9150 Lowell Boulevard location just off 92nd. That will be running from 8.30 in the morning through till noon. And please call ahead. Seats are often limited. So call ahead and make sure that you can Get your child's car seat professionally installed by our fire department professionals. So you can call 303-658-4500 to make an appointment for that. And then also on Saturday is our downtown Westminster Summer Sound Series with our Chamber of Commerce. That's live music at Aerostat Park, our new downtown park. And that's at 5750 West Central Avenue. And that will run from 6 p.m. to 8.30 p.m. And then on Sunday... another activity in downtown westminster continuation of the summer yoga series at aerostat park and that will happen from 9 a.m till 10 a.m next slide please our next meeting of city council is a study session meeting that's next monday july 20th that will begin at 6 30 in the boardroom adjacent to this room there are two items on that night state and federal legislative update with city council and then a 2025 annual comprehensive financial report and auditor's report on the results of the 2025 annual financial statement audit. So this is our annual reporting out and review with city council on how we did with our budget. Finally, always contact the city through Access Westminster to report a concern, problem, or something that you need addressed in your neighborhood. That's westminsterco.gov slash accesswestminster. Also, you get the app if you don't have it. It's GIS-linked, and so it will report automatically the location of your concern. You can give us a ring, 303-658-2400. Visit our website, westminsterco.gov, and do check out our transparency portal if you have any questions at all about where the city's revenues are being spent. You can track every dollar through westminsterco.gov, 903-TRANSPARENCY. That's all I have, Mayor.

Thank you so much. Council, do we have any comments or questions for the City Manager? Councilor Brahas.

Thank you. And thank you city manager for the presentation. I was just hoping to put a special question. I know you sent us an email with the update that you gave before public comment. If you have the actual script of what you said at this moment typed out, could you email that to us just so I can use that in responses to anyone or reference it? That would be helpful. So I just wanted to request that.

Thank you. Anyone online?

Hi, I do have one question. City Manager Nguyen, do we have a date yet on the request for the moratorium on data centers?

Thank you. Yes, thank you, Councillor Zotti. Yes, we do have a tentative date, and I will just confirm it here. Just give me a moment. Yeah, thank you. It is currently planned to bring that back to you at our next meeting of City Council on July 27th.

Mayor Pro Tem. Can I get a clarification on what's being brought to us on the 27th, an actual moratorium? So are we voting on that or just information to start?

Mayor Pro Tem, thank you for the question. The current plan is to bring back a resolution for council to consider which would be a ban on data centers in Westminster. There will also be a review of our current planning regulations which currently are interpreted to not allow data centers in Westminster. So we would provide that information to council and then we would provide a resolution for your consideration that would also not allow them in the future.

Thank you, let's move on to council comments. Council? Councilor Brahas.

We have a really full night, so I'll keep my comments brief. There were quite a few events that I went to, but one of the motifs that kind of kept on coming up through a lot of those engagements were staff presence. And so I just wanted to give a quick shout out in the midst of maybe some tension, in the midst of a lot of celebration, just the common thread there is that staff often proceeds and then circles back after council is kind of engaging. And so I just wanted to give a shout out to all of our staff. So anyone kind of listening or here in the audience, thank you so much for your diligent work. We even had public comment kind of thanking for that diligence. And so I just wanted to take a special moment to say that we are all busy. Up here on the dais, you know trying to engage with the community as we can And a lot of that engagement is empowered by the staff the expert staff that we have and so Thank you a special. Thank you for me to staff for making my job that much easier Anyone else all right folks online

I'll say something. This is Councillor Ireland. I just want to thank all those that came out to speak tonight. I thank for staff for listening to the people of West Cliff and their education to me on that park there and their use there and the history. I appreciate that. And also the people that talked about data centers. Of course, Tom Lampo, who always prays for moisture, which we need. And for the firefighters, they're in harm's way. I appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilor Azadi.

Yeah, I'd like to pile on with Councilor Barajas and Ireland on the staff. So this Westcliff situation was very tenuous and all of the conversations and it came up really quickly in the last seven days. But after city manager Andrews learned about them, his quick decision-making and decisiveness and leadership to work with staff and figure out that, okay, let's just find other alternative sites because of the sensitivity of that one location was very inspirational. So thank you, Jody. Thank you, staff, for being so responsive.

Thank you. Councilor Haught? Thank you. Okay, well, I value brevity, as many folks probably know, but my comments tonight are not as short. There's a lot to cover. So I just want to say thank you to the folks who are concerned about our water usage. That is of high, high priority to the city of Westminster. As you know, for the last three decades now, we have reduced our water usage in the city significantly. possibly more than most cities on the Front Range. We've been used as an example both within the state and nationwide of how municipalities can lead the way in this area, and we have done that. We have reduced our usage by I believe it's 28%, which is really remarkable, and that's a thank you to you, the folks who care in our city about helping us do that. And then I just wanna say too that please remember when it comes to the growth in our city that we have a comp plan that is tied, strictly tied to our water supply. And so unlike the majority of cities, our comp plan is not a guideline, it is enforceable. We are also near build out at this time. We've got less than 2% build out complete according to our comp plan. Of course changes can come, but that is highly unlikely. And so I just like to remind folks where we stand today and the fact that many of the decisions that we make are based on of course demand and the needs of the community, but also are strategic in nature and have been mapped out years prior. I want to give a big shout out to Cocopelli for their Social Bar grand opening this weekend. If you haven't had a chance to go check it out, over at our new downtown, we have a dog park and they've got a little pop-up stand. You can grab a beer and a snack and hang out right next to Aerostat Park. You can bring your dog and it's a lot of fun. They have just done a magnificent job of bringing our community together, which is a big goal of mine, is to find ways to get outside again, meet your neighbor again, and just say hi, say hi to a stranger. Let's get to know each other because grassroots community is what we need probably more than ever in our climate. And just another reminder, it was in the city manager's update, but every single Wednesday right now, we have music, free music out in our new downtown. There's a plaza and this has been a concerted effort. I love live music, so I'm not gonna forget to remind folks. but we now have it in Westminster and that took a lot of effort. So please go enjoy yourself. That's what it's there for is this is an investment in you truly in all of us. And I do wanna give a shout out to our staff for their incredible fireworks show. We did hear tonight, what a win that was. And that's the work of our fire professionals who are on site as always. And I hear the concerns of the community who thought, is this the right call? But I want to assure you that the information that I was given from our fire chief is due to the success of our project with the Dry Creek restoration, that was no small feat. That was 40 million invested in that area. We now have irrigation that goes through that area and we have a pollinator quarter, which I'm really excited about. Go check it out. If you stay for tonight's full agenda, you're gonna see that may now become open space to be permanently protected. So that's exciting. But because of that irrigation, it made our fireworks show safer than ever. And of course, it also means that we have our firefighters on site in case anything happens. And it also prevents everyone from going home and doing their own show, which is a little dangerous. So instead of hundreds of them all over the city, we had one big one. And I also want to give a shout out to the community because we had a concerted effort this year to crack down truly on fireworks in the city because of the safety issues. This was a big issue for me. I said, we're going to come out ahead of this early and strong. And there were, it was a record low number of folks out there setting them off. So that's a win. That's a huge win. So thank you. It was mentioned that our next update, our community update is August 18th and that will be going over our progress this year and the vision of the council and that is really exciting. I also wanna give a mention because that closely aligns to an event coming up after that in the fall which is not on the books yet, but I'm gonna break the rules by announcing it anyway, that we will likely be having a state of the city, a public state of the city, and that will go over our accomplishments, our progress, the vision, and this is part of the effort to provide transparent information to you, to the public, you deserve it and that would be held the morning of Westy Fest most likely. Now it still needs to be landed but it'll probably be 10 or 11 a.m. before things really get going and that's really exciting because this is a concerted effort to make our information free and accessible to you. That's not to disclaimer to our chamber. Our chamber does provide an annual incredible State of the Union that they host. But that is, you know, it's beautiful and it's invite only and it hosts maybe about 200 folks and it's behind closed doors. And so I love it and I want to make sure that we break open those doors and those walls and that everyone is invited, thousands of people. You get to hear what we're doing right here in the city and it's free. I also want to give a big shout out to what you just heard the city manager talk about with our Westminster OUR. Go to our city webpage, check out OUR Westminster. It tells you all the projects that are going on in the city right now. And this is really exciting. This I would like to think is part of the effort that we brought up a couple years ago saying, hey, we get a lot of questions about this project. Can we make sure that we have an update on our webpage about this? And then we said, well, can we have a page that has six of our biggest projects? And our staff did a lot of work to make that happen. Here's six of our biggest projects. Here's what's under construction. Here's the updates. Now we have a software tool, a beautiful page. It shows everything we're working on all in one place. It answers a lot of your questions. When you email us, please do. That's what we're here for. Check this page first. It might answer what you're about to ask about because it's got everything that's up to date. And this is a real part of my effort to you to give you timely, transparent, and accessible information. I want it to be easy. People should be able to know what's going on right away. I had a few more notes about events, but it's been a busy month, so I'll let that go. Thank you all as always for commenting. We appreciate you. With that, that moves us to our next agenda item. Are there any potential agenda items council would like to propose for discussion at a future meeting? Hearing none, we will now move to our consent agenda. Do I have a motion for the consent agenda? Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve consent agenda item 9A.

Thank you. Mayor Pertem. Second. Thank you. The motion has been moved and seconded. Is there any further discussion? Okay I will make a quick comment then hearing none I just want to say that this resolution is for the redesignation of some park and open space land and it wins us the city another four acres of park of sorry open space which means it's permanently preserved and protected which is always a win and it is part of that pollinator quarter that I just mentioned right behind the dry creek restoration area and it gives the city and its residents that disc golf that we've been asking for for a few years. So I just want folks to know we have not forgotten you. We promised you disc golf and you are getting that. So with that, roll call, please.

Councillor Barajas. Yes. Mayor Carmelia. Yes. Councillor Azadi.

Yes.

Councillor Haught.

Yes.

Councillor Ireland. Yes. Yes. Councillor Johnson.

Yes.

And Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. The motion passes on a 7-0 vote.

Thank you so much. There are no appointments or resignations this evening, which moves us to public hearings. There are three public hearings. And first up is item 11A, public hearing and consideration of an official development plan for Prose Uplands, filing three, block one, tract A, and block three. Welcome.

Mayor, if I could, as a preliminary matter before the presentation begins, I would just ask for a moment with Councilor Johnson. Councilor Johnson, I understand that a representative of the applicant for this project had reached out to you by email earlier this year, which led to some inquiries being made on the project. I'm wanting to, on the record tonight, just establish with you whether or not you have prejudged the item

you

Thank you, City Attorney. Yes, I did have communication with the applicant on March 19th, and I have not prejudged this item.

Okay. And are you able to consider the evidence that's presented tonight and make your decision solely based on that evidence after applying the criteria in the Westminster Municipal Code?

Thank you. Yes, I am able to consider the evidence tonight, and my decision will be based solely on the evidence presented and the criteria set forth in Westminster Municipal Code 11-5-15. Thank you. I appreciate that. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Thank you for keeping us honest as always. All right. Welcome.

Mayor, I appreciate the opportunity to hand out hard copies of the Westminster Municipal Code approval criteria that are applicable to tonight's items. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council. My name is Reb Batesall, Senior Planner, here to provide you with the staff presentation for this public hearing item tonight. As part of bringing this project before you, a staff agenda memo has been created and tonight's public hearing has been properly noticed. The agenda memo, its associated attachments, tonight's PowerPoint presentation, the mailed notices, and the posted notices are hereby entered into the public record at this time. The notices of tonight's public hearing were mailed to 800 property owners and tenants and one HOA within 1,000 feet of the parcel under consideration tonight. Seven public notification signs were posted on the subject property, both in English and Spanish, and the city has also posted the hearing date and time on its website. The project site is located on the southeast corner of Federal Boulevard and West 88th Avenue. These site plans are from sheets 12 and 13 of the official development plan. And Section 11.515 of the Westminster Municipal Code contains 17 criteria that must be considered when reviewing an official development plan. Staff finds that the proposed official development plan complies with the criteria in Section 11.515 of the Westminster Municipal Code if the conditions outlined in the agenda memo are met. The staff recommendation is to hold a public hearing and conditionally approve the official development plan for Uplands filing three, block one, tract A, and block three, subject to the following conditions of approval. Number one, to revise the design of the buildings to incorporate roof breaks as required by the multifamily design standards. This is design standard AD-1-D3, or to provide solar panels on all of the buildings, the same size as shown on sheet 43 of attachment two in your packet. And staff finds that this revision would meet the proposed exception justification provided by the applicant. Number two is to revise the site design to provide screening of the parking with a minimum 36 inch screen wall or other negotiated alternative as required by design standards LD-1D7. Number three, to revise the site design to meet at least a minimum of 30% landscaped area or to propose an alternative to increase the density or intensity of the landscaping as required by the 2004 landscape regulations and the design standard LD-1A1. Number four, to revise the design of the buildings to provide the minimum size and quantity of patios and balconies as required by design standards AD-3B. And number five, this would require the applicant to return the ODP to technical review to incorporate these changes, which would be eligible for administrative approval by staff. A planning commission reviewed this application on May 26, 2026 and voted unanimously in favor of recommendation for conditional approval with the conditions identified in the memo. Staff finds that a recommendation of approval of this application with the conditions outlined in the memo would meet the city's strategic plan priorities for opportunity to thrive and resilient infrastructure, which are met by using existing infrastructure and facilitating infill development within existing neighborhoods that provide additional diverse housing types within the city. Thank you for your attention. There are several staff members here with me tonight. We're happy to answer any questions you have and the applicant is with us tonight and has a presentation to share with you as well.

Thank you.

All right, I'm gonna look at the screens here. Thank you for having me, Mayor and City Councilors. I'm Ellie Reynolds. I'm with Alliance and the applicant team tonight. Also behind me, just so you know, folks from Alliance that are here is the Managing Director of the Mountain Division, Andy Clay, Andrew Farley, the Development Director, and the Norris Design, which has done all of our architecture work for this product. I first would like to go over just the profile of who Alliance is. While we're based out of Scottsdale, Arizona, we have quite a bit over 5,000 multifamily units in the metro area and are an experienced multifamily builder in the area specializing in really what we call attainable priced housing. And that's gonna be a big part of our project tonight is making sure that we are reaching attainable prices in this development. I know that Reb went over the site context here, but another thing I'd like to just go ahead and go over is specific to the area to kind of situate you all, there is an affordable product, the Maker's Product, which is east of our north product, and so north parcel. And so ultimately this would be diversifying the kind of housing that you have in that mix. You have the affordable going and this would be that attainable price that we're talking out while meeting the city's vision for the uplands. This is our project overview. It will be about 278 attainably priced units, a mixture of units. You can see there'll be everything from studios to two bedroom, two bath, even with a den for families. And then we are going to be hitting 70% AMI on these targeted rents. And so that is really what gets us into that attainable pricing. We talked about our site plan here. Ultimately, you can go ahead and see, I think you have the drawings in front of you. In the middle, you'll see that that is where our community center as well as our dog park and really our outdoor living is. And then there's a perimeter of landscaping around that. And then what we'll get into as well is we did agree to do that wall, the screening wall, which came out of planning. So we were amenable to that, as well as installing solar into this design as well. It was really important to us to be able to not only get the design points, but also be able to know where the planning commission had really prioritized that. This is our architecture and design of the product. It's three stories. This is product in which you can see the roof breaks after we came out of planning with that request for these roof breaks. This is product that Alliance has done in many other places in the metro area as well. And then neighborhood outreach and staff coordination. We have actually started this project October 22nd of 2025. So we've been in this process for a very long time, working with your planners, trying to figure out how we could make an attainable housing product like this fit with this area. There's quite a bit of design code in Westminster, and we wanted to make sure that we could accomplish that while bringing a product that's true to what Alliance develops. In that we held our community meeting. I had done a ton of neighborhood outreach. We had our neighborhood meeting and not one person was in attendance, whether positive or negative. So for that, oftentimes that is a win for the community. And then our planning recommendation. This is the one I'd really like to be able to go through each item. You know, they asked us to incorporate roof breaks or solar panels on all buildings. If you're a meetable, I know, Reb, I had talked about handing out a design at this point, if that's okay. Do I hand that to the clerk? You can... So mayor and city councilors, after we came out of planning commission, one of the things that we really heard from planning commission is that they wanted solar and then they also wanted roof breaks. And how the solar install really would work for this specific design would not allow for solar to go on roof breaks. It just doesn't work with the efficiency of the solar. And so what we would like to do tonight is to talk about how we could be able to provide both. So we believe that ultimately we can provide a win for the city by providing roof breaks which you have in front of you that design on all of the buildings except for three of them that have solar. So you get both. You're gonna get the visual architecture of the roof breaks that's required while also getting the solar on those. Ultimately, while it said that we could do one or the other, if we just did the roof breaks, we wouldn't be hitting our design criteria that's also in front of you. So it would be redoing the entire plan. This would allow us to be able to do both and also fit kind of the sustainability goals that the city has with providing that solar and the architecture design. On the second piece, we came out of planning realizing that we were able to provide that screening wall because what we ended up hearing at planning was it was just a portion that was needed to be screened, not the entirety of the property. And so we did take that back, price that out. It is gonna be an over $200,000 cost to our product, but we are able to meet adding that minimum screen wall. On the third piece here, the meeting at least the minimum of the 30% area landscape. We know that other products that are before you or projects have received variances on this. Ultimately, we're not necessarily asking for a variance because we don't want to provide the outdoor landscaping, we actually would like you to just reconsider how that number is captured. So ultimately the city's requirement is 30% of landscaped, but it didn't include our dog park, which is very large. It didn't include our community center landscaping, and it also didn't include all of that perimeter landscaping that we showed you on the site planned. So if you were to include the perimeter, the amenities, the dog park, the community area, we actually would be at 41.7% of our site landscaped. And then also on another thing, part of the Westminster's design is that you actually only need to get 4% park space. And we did wanna call attention that we are actually providing 5.7% park space within that community center. So we are going above and beyond on those outdoor amenities. And then on the minimum, providing the minimum size and quantity of patios, this is another thing that came out of planning that was just kind of interesting how 80 square foot is actually what the requirement is on these patios, which are incredibly large for the kind of product that we're providing, but only 54 is what's required. So very large square footage, but only 54 are actually required. And what you have in front of you and what we'd like to offer is actually more balconies, but not at the 84 square feet. So we would like to offer actually at, let's see if I can go here. through, I'll get us here. We'd like to offer the 64 balconies with the different square footage you can see up there. So still very large, great size balconies for the area, but depending on the product, right, depending on the size and the square footage of the unit, that would be how large your balcony would be. So what we heard at planning commission was that outdoor living space is a priority to Westminster residents. And so what we did is we took that back and said, how do we, well, we can't meet this 80 square feet because this is incredibly large and really would change the whole aesthetic. What we could do is we could increase the amount of people that could enjoy outdoor living space by providing not only the 64 patios, But in addition, every ground floor unit has an outdoor patio. That is something that also is not necessarily required. So ultimately, while you require 54, all in all, we will be providing 138 outdoor living spaces. So we heard that that was a need and this is how we're able to accomplish that need. And so those are really where we came from on one side, but we had initially in our initial submittal came from quite a bit of things that we didn't think this product would be able to deliver on. And planning commission really helped us put pen to paper on how we could do that within the code of Westminster while achieving the outcomes that you all were looking for. With that, I'm happy to go ahead and answer questions. I do have not only our architecture team who could talk about any of those pamphlets that you have in front of you on the design as well.

Thank you. Counselor, are there any questions for the applicant? Mayor Pro Tem.

Thank you for the presentation and for staff too. Just curious from staff, if I may ask a question of staff first. How did this, given all of the conditions that we have that are alluding to standards that we have, why are they not currently represented in the proposal?

Sorry, may I ask your question again?

Why do we have conditions? Many of these conditions are standards.

Yes. So the conditions of approval are from the exceptions that the applicant is requesting. There's 14 exceptions. Staff supports 10 of them. The conditions of approval are in reference to the four that staff does not support. And the condition is specific to revising the site design to meet that design standard.

Okay, so they insisted on coming in with the presenting something that staff wasn't fully behind.

Exactly, and with council's approval and deliberation, you can decide whether or not you want to approve with those conditions or not. Okay, thank you.

For the applicant, you talked about attainability. I have a sensitivity to when we're talking about attainability without any type of deed restriction or confirmation that these will remain at 70% of the AMI. Can you speak to how you maintain that overall versus your initial, Lisa?

I don't know if you want to answer that as the developer and the management. So the other thing that's different about Alliance is they will also manage the property.

My name is Andy Clay with Alliance Residential. It's a market rate approach that we've done in other communities. So we have different platforms of product, some that are luxury, And then we have others where we're targeting more of a middle income, kind of a missing middle income workforce housing. These would be first responders, teachers. And as our rents have performed, this hits 70% of the AMI. We target that because what we actually target when we're doing this is delivering a product that is new and fresh, but we're targeting where luxury product is getting rents and where, say, 20-year-old Class B product that's built in the early 2000s We try to be in the middle of those to provide a new option for people that are living in kind of that older product. but not delivering something that has to achieve the rents that are top of the market. And that, in this case, comes out to 70% AMI. But we don't think that, and our experience has been that that doesn't have to be in a, you know, LIHTC kind of subsidized housing model, that that can actually happen in a tempered design where you're providing...

Sir, I'm very sorry. Thank you for that explanation. We do appreciate it. And in respect for time, I think I just want to redirect you. I think the question was more, how do we preserve the 70%? And I'll let the Mayor Pro Tem reiterate just to help guide where we're going.

Yeah, I understand your designing and it shows to 70% AMI, but how do you, you know, we're kind of, you know, you're looking for a lot of exceptions to standards. I would say the design is a struggle to look at, you know, I'd like to see something better. Aside from that, if we are providing any exceptions, how do we ensure that the 70% AMI that you're building to is maintained over time?

There's no deed restriction proposed. Because it's a market rate approach, there's no guarantee that it will stay at 70%.

Okay, so that's something for us to consider as we look at exceptions that are being requested. I understand that the current market rate in this area is at the 70% AMI. Is that correct?

That's correct, yeah.

Okay, thank you. I just had one or two questions for the architecture team.

Good evening, Hersh Barik with Santalon Architecture.

Hi, thank you. So I'm just curious, The roof breaks that are shown in here, they seem kind of incongruous with the rest of the design of the building. I don't know if there's a way to, as you're going back through and updating this ODP, if this moves forward, if they can look a little more integrated into the design.

So in my personal opinion, I don't think that the roof breaks that we added be careful here, there's ridge breaks, right? And then there's breaks in the eave of the buildings. What we specifically added here at the request of Planning Commission are ridge breaks and we did that because there's a statutory requirement. I think that from a human perspective, looking up at that building, you will not see what we did, the articulation that we added. We are doing it to satisfy a statutory requirement. That's sort of the honest truth as an architectural professional. Now, you're giving me a subjective opinion that this is not done properly. I take that to heart. I guess we would work with staff and see if that could be done in different locations that would be potentially more pleasing. We did this in a hurry. I will grant because we're trying to come here and meet a statutory requirement.

That'd be great. Okay, and then the other question I had was I am noticing that there are air conditioning units that are all along the, it's in the graphic, so I don't know, do they get screened? They get screened. Okay, so I just wanted to clarify that. Okay. And then the last question I have is regarding the different balcony sizes. Is there a consistent depth to the balconies? And we're just talking about length of balconies in those different sizes that are being...

You know, I don't have that. There is some differentiation between the depths of balconies. Not all balconies are the same, but I think we're very close. I believe that six foot depth is a requirement. I think we're very close to the depth. Problem is 80 feet, 80 square feet. would make that balcony very wide. I'll just give you an example. If something was six foot deep and let's say 12 foot wide, that would be the entire living room or bedroom, right? Roughly 12 foot. That's only 72. In order to meet Westminster's requirement of an 80 square foot balcony, you're bridging the living and the bedroom with a single balcony. It's going to look like a cruise ship. Or it needs to be very deep, seven feet, eight feet, 10 feet, You know, there are high-end condo projects out there with 50-square-foot balconies. So it's a very generous requirement. I understand when it was written. I understand the well-meaning behind it. People ought to have spaces that they can use. Put down a table and four chairs. But it doesn't take away the fact that 80-square-foot is a very large... balcony and it would make it like a sea of balconies out there. So what we're proposing, I think, is a little bit more considered approach. There are more balconies than bare minimum required, but they don't all meet. Some of them do meet the size. The patios are required to be, I believe, 120 square feet. We're meeting that, all of our patios are, because there we feel like we can go across the dwelling unit a little bit.

Okay, it would just be helpful to know if you're looking to meet at least our minimum depth for the balconies as we think about...

I believe we are, but I don't have the drawings in front of me. I believe the average depth of balcony does exceed Westminster depth.

Okay, thank you. And I did have one last question on the landscape requirement. Can you remind me again the... The landscaped area, are you in your total up to 40, where you're getting the 40%, are you including the setback areas along the street? Yes, the perimeter. Okay. And then we don't normally count to staff. Can you help us distinguish between, why the disconnect between the two?

Hi, Stephanie Ashman, Senior Planner Landscape and Conservation. So we don't count the right-of-way as part of the landscaped area. We do count anything with inside the property boundaries, including the private park area.

But do we require, or do we count the setback area? So if they are required to set back like 10 feet, 20 feet from the right-of-way?

Yes, that's part of the landscaped area. Okay.

And so how is this coming up short right now?

I'll leave that to that.

Thank you.

We were under the estimate that they, and Andy, if you have the landscaping piece, if you want to come up, that ultimately they weren't including the perimeter or the amenities that we included.

Yeah, so the graphic is really small. Sorry, Andrew Farley with the land residential. Everything in green highlighted is currently in the count on the ODP. So that's roughly 20% landscaped area. So that's what's in the exception. What our proposal here is on this is if you count the playground and the dog park, which are highlighted in blue, and then there's five feet around each perimeter of every residential building, it will all be rock mulched. So it'll appear to be landscaped, but we don't irrigate within five feet of every building due to foundation issues. So it's not, our understanding was the landscaped area was calculated on irrigated area.

Is that right, is that how we're? Okay.

Yeah, so technically landscaped area is including living plant material in irrigable area. And so with that five feet perimeter around the building, we do not count that as part of the required percentage.

Okay, thank you both for making that distinction. Thank you, Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. And I probably have, it's probably staff to start. And the first question may be a little silly, but we were drawing out, and if I can scroll, this is block one tract A and block three. I assume block three, or sorry, block one tract B is maker housing and that carries over. Is that correct? the little you know the little cutout at the top that's yeah is that all maker housing that crosses the street yes on the northeast side of the site okay yeah that that helps me kind of visualize um the the site plan a little bit better um the question i had is i know that this has come relatively late in the game but Have you had an opportunity to analyze the roof breaks and would that meet the criteria under exception 12 from your perspective if we were to send it back?

I would ask that staff gets the opportunity to receive and review the plans in a typical technical review like we would. We have not had the opportunity to review what is in front of you right now.

Councilor Barajas.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for the presentation to both staff. We'll start with staff for a second. Thank you to both staff and the applicant. Contrary to what you might see up here, not every resident is an expert in land use and design. So I'm the representative of that. So a lot of my questions are gonna be pretty basic, starting with what is a roof break and why wasn't it included in the initial design? I guess maybe that's more of an what's a roof break and I guess that's a good starting point.

Could I please ask the applicant to come up and describe to you why they chose not to meet that criteria from the beginning?

Yeah, thank you. Yeah, that'd be great. Okay.

The architect can come up as well and talk about that or Andrew, but ultimately I would say the first piece is that if you remember the first number that they said was roof break or all solar, and we did initially come with pre-wired solar and all, and then planning kind of led us in a different direction, but I'll also go ahead and have the developer talk about that.

Yeah that's an adequate response. It's accommodating for current solar that we've designed into it as well as future solar pre-wire where we would need the surface space for the What we're doing here is saying, okay, then we'll put in roof breaks and we'll have the solar that we're planning on three of the buildings and then the others won't have the capacity for that.

A little bit of history here. As Reb said, there are 14 exceptions that we're asking for. It's not that we said that we don't want to follow your rules. It was part of a larger discussion about how we're trying to best meet the City of Westminster's goals of a sustainable housing product that uses less water. If we were to follow all of Westminster's requirements, it would be a lot of greenscape, a lot of water use, et cetera. So it was a collaborative effort. Where we ended up was they supported 10 of them and they did not support four of them. I understand that, that they're doing an excellent job. On this specific matter, we asked for another exception, which said instead of making us install solar on three buildings, which is what your statute requires, we would much rather pre-wire all the buildings. And so we started with a design that had no ridge breaks. It had plenty of eve articulation, just no ridge breaks because we want to leave enough surface area above for solar on all the buildings. And we hadn't done a full solar analysis based on solar orientation. Some buildings may be more amenable, some not. Staff said that that's not a great trade-off. You can't say we'll do some future thing because we're not guaranteed to have solar on day one. So no, no, you know what? We're going to reject that. Why don't you go ahead and provide three buildings today with solar? So that's what we settled on. We are providing today solar on three buildings. But on the rest of them then, we said, fine, then let's go ahead and do the ridge breaks.

I apologize, Councillor. I just thought that I'd reiterate his very first question, if we could, to help all the council out. And I think you're the right person. Oh, what is it, Rick? What is it, Rick? Sorry. You are the expert.

We're saying a couple of different things.

So I think you're the perfect person to ask.

Thank you, Mayor. So should I answer that?

Please.

So, you know, just think of a typical pitch roof. Think of a monopoly house. If you just extruded that, that's all it would look like, just a flat surface. We are breaking the continuity of that eave by introducing dormers, right? Basically, these objects that interrupt the eave. I would call them eave breaks. right so anything that interrupts the eve oh okay right where the roof yeah where the roof meets the wall that's the eve anything that breaks over the e break the statute in addition to articulating the eve refers to ridge break so now we're talking about the very peak that the peak of the building should not be one continuous peak it should be broken it was introduced to introduce articulation in a building, but there's plenty of award-winning architecture that doesn't have a single ridge break, but we're trying to meet the statute here. So we introduced them late.

That's helpful. Thank you. Thank you for the response. My next question is like a specific question and I'm going to throw it to staff, but maybe we redirect it again. There's a lot of, you kind of offered us the approve with these conditions. And then we heard the presentation from the applicant. I'm trying to, I'll just be playing here. Was the presentation from the applicant, presenting why we don't need those conditions or was this presentation saying, yeah, the conditions are fine and this is how we're gonna meet them. I guess I'm really trying to wrap my brain around kind of the process and then we're gonna send it back and then ODP will have to be revised and resent. So I guess...

maybe i don't want to make you make a statement on that and maybe that is something that the staff can or that the applicant can clarify but if you have a some insight for me as a beginner in land use that'd be great of course it sounds like the applicant is willing to meet two of the conditions of approval um provided to you in that printout tonight that staff has not had the opportunity to review and then two of the conditions of approval they would their providing reason that they do not think they need to meet those conditions of approval and hoping that you'll understand why.

Okay, that's helpful. I was so, and I can throw it to the applicant now. Thank you, staff.

Thank you.

You're welcome. So then, so my understanding with that kind of, I guess first I just want to offer you an opportunity. Is that kind of a good summary?

She did a great summary.

Great, thank you. So the two that you are, the two conditions that you have provided for us today that staff hasn't had a chance to look at are, I'm just cycling through all the pages of the thing, but it's the solar and roof break. Is that one of them?

Yes. And just to clarify, we did send our presentation with all of these conditions as well as the roof breaks to staff. I just think probably what they're referring to is the full breakdown of what the staff would do and provide comments and feedback to. So we did let the staff know that we'd be coming with these conditions. So yes, we are amenable to the roof breaks as well as the screening wall. And then Ultimately, we believe that we do meet the landscape area if we were to include things like that dog park and that play area as well as the perimeters. And then the patios that while we might not meet the 80 square foot patio, we do meet the square footage request and actually exceed the square footage that's required.

okay so it's us we can interpret that argument as attending to that great thank you um and then one final question thank you i appreciate that one final question to staff on the landscaping uh piece of it um the my question essentially is about uh water, now I don't even know the right language, flood, like water permeation. So would we count, would we consider, I know that landscaping, we kind of clarified it, is irrigatable or places that we have irrigation. Typical stone mulch around buildings, does that offer in your, Does that offer the ability for rainwater and precipitation events to permeate the ground and go into the water table or just go into groundwater as opposed to kind of runoff into our sewer systems and flood systems?

I mean, it can. It doesn't have a living plant material root system to be able to take in some of that water that you receive from a rainfall. It also depends on how the site is graded. Typically, you're grading 2% away from your architectural buildings to encourage runoff away from the buildings to protect the foundations. If they were to do concrete around those buildings, that would prevent any type of permeability going directly adjacent to the foundation.

Okay. I would, I guess, just comment to staff or to my kind of fellow council is that that's kind of where my mind is when I'm thinking of landscape and kind of the need for it. I don't know if as we kind of attend to these conditions, if like attending to that need, you know, rock mulch and grade permeability is just kind of what my considerations are. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

That's all, Amir.

Thank you. Online, I'm gonna go to Councilor Azadi first. Any questions for staff or the applicant? Thank you. Councilor Haught, did you have any thoughts or questions? Councilor Ireland?

You know, I always ask how much parking is there? And I think that's an exception too. because all this parking ends up in other neighborhoods and around and it's, I have to think about, you know, the future, what happens. So how much parking is there per unit?

So total unit count is 276 units, and we are providing 332 spaces on site. So that is less than the requirement, but it is a listed exception, and we supported that with the parking study that was included in our review.

Okay. Everyone I talk to that's in apartments has parking problems, so I don't care what their income is. My problem is our mass transit is not providing what people need to get here or there. They have to have cars. So for that reason, I'm not happy with this project again.

Thank you. Did you have any further questions?

No, I just, I think if we want quality projects in our city, we don't make all these exceptions all the time.

Thank you, counselor. Okay, I have a few questions of my own. And just seeing as the community center, as you mentioned, is included or you'd like to include that in the outdoor space, I'm assuming then that it's not an indoor public, what do they call it? Like a pool club? What is it?

So the only areas that we're actually asking to include are the playground highlighted in blue, and the dog park highlighted in blue. You'll see the pool, you can kind of tell by the shape up by the clubhouse, that we're not asking to include in the calc.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry, we do have an indoor clubhouse space if that was what the question was referring to.

Perfect, thank you. And that's separate. Okay, sounds good. And then we said that the solar with your current plan would be included on three of the buildings. And the rest of the buildings were saying that it would be solar ready?

No.

That was our original plan.

We would do the solar today on the three buildings. And then instead of the solar ready, which we had initially came to planning with. I see. Okay.

So that would be unincluded. Okay. I'll just share the rest of my thoughts then, which is I am grateful for the compromise on some of these items. So personally, I like that you kind of combine the ask of the roof breaks with the solar. I'm happy with that. And I also think that having solar present today is more valuable than possible solar in the future because who's going to pay for that with multifamily? Almost an impossibility and we've had solar ready projects presented before and I don't understand where that's going. So thank you for that and Personally, I am in agreement of Having more folks have access to patios and balconies if that is a sacrifice on size and the landscape, you know, I understand our ask. We want to keep our area beautiful, but I think I might be willing to compromise seeing as this is to meet the needs and AMI of the community. My remaining concerns are just to Mayor Pro Tem's point about the retaining this as affordable or attainable housing. I don't know how that's possible. And seeing as you'll be managing it ongoing, it sounds like you may have some sort of control over that. Is that true?

Correct. So Alliance does not only build the product, but also manage it. I would say that just as a reminder, unlike an affordable housing project that has tax dollars, deed restrictions, those sort of things, it's very hard for a fair market product. like this to have that restriction necessarily set here but ultimately that that is really what we're coming to you and I would hope I know this is like asking a lot of trust but we have been in this process for a year and are continuously you know trying to work with the city to be able to provide this product at the end of the day too I think it's important to note that The construction loans and the investors that are associated with a product like this are investing in a workforce product. And what has been brought forward for this product is ultimately we wouldn't be here today if we were going to be striving for that luxury product because we wouldn't need these variances. So I know that that's a lot of trust in this process on what we're coming to you as, but ultimately we would continue to be good partners in this and continue to work with you all as the product comes online and let you know what those rents are.

Thank you so much. And then my last question is just about protecting the parking from view. I don't know that I heard a great solution. We said it was buildings and trees, right? What is the strong reason we can't have a berm?

Just the amount of space. Yeah, this is okay if you guys can see the screen, the landscape, the calcs. With the urban multifamily, we were able to lessen the setbacks to get closer to the street to kind of create that urban feeling of buildings closer to the street, more pedestrian friendly. There just isn't space to do those burns. And we also felt that connectivity was really important here. And so to create all of these paths to all the exterior perimeters and not create kind of a private berm was beneficial to the project.

So on the berm was an interesting discussion with staff because, and they'll know more technical terms here than I recall, but there's a place type that this site has been designated and this urban place type. And that's why you see rectilinear buildings sort of hugging the street perimeter, engaging with the street and trying to hide the building, the parking behind the buildings. That whole thing is in a way sort of contravenes the the concept that's in the Westminster code that you should have a berm and then the building and then the parking. So it was a bit of a sort of design conundrum. So where we left it was why don't we like hide all the parking behind the buildings And then get the building somewhat close together and make the building be the street wall. And then engage that very strongly with the street to provide that eyes on safety and engagement with the public realm. And then wherever there are little gaps in the building, use dense landscaping.

Understood. Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Okay. Oh, Mayor Pertem.

Thank you. I just had a couple of follow-up questions. I'm just wondering for this particular conversation on the frontages, is there... I can't remember the... footprint of the Maker Project and to which street they primarily front onto. But I'm just wondering, right now we're kind of picking 87th place for, that building frontage to be prioritized and is it preferable to have 88th Avenue have the frontage, the building frontage? Is there the staff, if you had to choose one and what would be consistent with the... other proposed project?

Sure. Thank you, Mayor Pretender-Miller. My name is Jacob Cossett, principal planner for current development for the city of Westminster. So the maker housing development actually hugs up against Decatur Street. And then it's pretty close to 88th and a little bit offset from 87th. The front door of the maker building will actually face internal into a parking lot and kind of a courtyard that they're building. Right. which will face towards the west. They have a parking lot with a dog park interior to it. And that parking lot is actually going to directly abut to the parking lot that's shown in the upper left-hand corner of that map on the screen.

So it's just a linear building, primarily fronting on a Decatur. Pretty much. And not 88, okay. Mm-hmm. That's helpful. And then going back to the landscape area, is it a pickleball court or sports court or something that would be a solid surface that you're trying to also include?

It is shown in the visuals as a pickleball court. We made that change to a dog park before coming to planning commission actually. And that was due to, we heard some comments about sound of pickleball. and disrupting the neighbors. So we thought the residents would appreciate a dog park more. So apologies if the visuals aren't updated, but that would be a dog park.

Okay, so we're like number six. Yes, exactly. That is helpful. Okay, so those could both be permeable.

Correct. They are permeable.

Okay, okay. And then finally, on the parking exception, since Councilor Ireland asked about that, I was wondering if staff could provide some context on where they are with respect to the reduced parking and, And maybe if you could also remind us what the unit sizes are so that we can better understand why the lower space per unit.

Sure, thank you. Planning staff and our traffic engineering staff reviewed the traffic generation analysis prepared and submitted by the applicant. And we use that as a justification for the reduced parking. The study said that the proposed use and the proposed parking wouldn't meet the requirements of the site. And they said the volumes wouldn't negatively impact the operations of adjacent roadways or intersections. So staff and traffic engineering decided that we could support that reduction in parking onsite.

Is there on-street parking that could also provide some spillover?

There could be on-street parking, but we would not count that towards their parking requirement since parking needs to be provided on-site. However, you're right, cars could overflow and park on the street.

And just a curiosity, I don't know, I imagine no staff right now knows the ratio that's up on the project that's just south of North Park where it's an affordable housing development that does have a reduced parking ratio and it has had in the past a lot of complaints about not having enough parking and impact on surrounding neighborhood. How does this, to the extent you know, kind of relate with that?

what we see up there versus what's proposed here. Can I look into that question, how much parking is provided on that property and compared to this one?

Yeah. Okay. Okay. And then can the council, can, what is the breakdown of units, one beds versus twos kind of? Thank you.

Yes. Oh, I missed it.

There we go.

And here's the breakdown of the units. You can see 20 studio, 88, one bedroom, one bath, 40, one bed, one bath, den, 88, two bed, two bath, and then 40, two bed, two bath, den. And a lot of, sorry, this feels like I'm getting feedback. A lot of the parking study included those because obviously it took into account how much registrations would be per unit, that sort of thing, based on this makeup.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you all so much. I just want to look, oh, there she is, lovely. Okay, well, thank you so much. With that, I would like to ask if there are any speakers present for the hearing?

We do. We have, well, I have to ask the public commenter, Eric Gardner, is this the item you wanted to speak on? Okay, we have three speakers then. The first speaker is Eric Gardner. Thank you.

Good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council. My name is Eric Gardner. I'm the Vice Chair of Westminster Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. The Chamber supports projects that strengthen Westminster economic support, our workforce and contribute to long-term health of our community. From that perspective, I'd like to express our support for PROS Upland. One of the biggest challenges that I hear from our members isn't just finding employees, it's finding employees who can afford to live in or near the community they serve, whether it teaches, whether there's teachers, healthcare workers, first responders, retained employees, or young professionals. housing affordability contributes to being one of the most significant barriers to attracting and retaining a strong workforce. While Pro-Upland is a market rate development, it has been intentionally designed to provide more affordable housing opportunities. The project is expected to offer rent below comparable new apartment communities in Westminster today. what that affordability gap project to grow as the market continues to strengthen. It helps create an important middle ground for residents who earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing but our increased price out of the home ownership. Today, the median home price in Westminster exceeds 540,000. For many working professionals, that translates into a monthly cost of ownership that simply outreach. Developments like this provide another housing choice for the people who teach our children, care for our family, respond to emergencies, and keep our local business running every day. Behind the housing itself, this project is consistent with the city vision for the upland area, provides 276 apartment homes, in an area plan for urban multifamily development and includes walkable design, integration over space and amenities, bike connectivity and public access park space. Those elements align with Westminster's adopt plan and help create a neighborhood that is consistent and livable. The chamber believes that a healthy economy requires a healthy housing, economic system. We need homes at a variety of price points if we're going to continue attracting employees, supporting existing businesses, and ensuring that people who work in Westminster have an opportunity to live here as well. For those reasons, the Westminster Chamber of Commerce respectfully supports pro-Uplands and encourages your approval. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you so much. The next speaker is Matt LaCrue.

Welcome. Good evening, everyone. My name is Matt LaCrue, and I'm here to read a letter into the record on behalf of the Colorado Workforce Housing Coalition. Unfortunately, the representative couldn't be with us tonight, so I have agreed to read their statement to the record. Dear Mayor and Council Members, on behalf of the Colorado Workforce Housing Coalition, we are submitting this letter in support of Alliance Residential's proposed Pros Upland Community. The Colorado Workforce Housing Coalition is a statewide organization dedicated to advancing policies that expand housing opportunities for Colorado workforce. Our coalition represents housing providers, property owners, industry professionals, and stakeholders who recognize that increasing the supply of quality housing at a variety of price points is essential to Colorado's economic future. Colorado continues to face a significant housing shortage, particularly for working individuals and families who earn too much to qualify for subsidized housing but cannot afford today's home ownership market. Multifamily housing plays a critical role in addressing this gap by providing attainable, professionally managed housing options that allow residents to live closer to their jobs, reduce commute burdens, and strengthen local economies. The Pros Uplands Project represents exactly the type of thoughtful residential development community should encourage. By adding new rental housing to Westminster, this project will help meet existing demand while supporting the city's long-term housing and economic development goals. Alliance Residential has established a strong reputation across Colorado and the nation as a responsible developer and a long-time owner in high-quality communities. Their developments are known for thoughtful design, professional management, and a commitment to be a good neighbor. Rather than simply constructing apartment communities, Alliance invests in neighborhoods that enhance surrounding properties and provide lasting value to the communities they serve. As Colorado housing's challenges continue to grow, projects like Pro's Uplands are an important part of the solution. We respectfully encourage the Westminster City Council to approve this application and support the creation of additional housing opportunities for current and future reference. Thank you for consideration and your continued leadership in addressing Colorado's housing needs. Sincerely, Terrence Doyle, the Chair of the Colorado Workforce Housing Coalition. Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Michael Farrington.

Welcome.

Thank you. Good evening, Madam Mayor, council members. My name is Michael Farrington. I'm here speaking on my own capacity and as well as one of the leads of YIMBY North Metro Housing Advocacy Group here in the North Front Range. This development will create 276 new homes. Homes, not units. If you know me, you know I don't like the phrase units. I don't like that we talk about homes as units. There are places where families will live. There are places where our community continue to grow. It's where people who have a grandparent who's going to need to move in with them have a place when it's a two bedroom with a den. It's a place where folks can raise kids and an unexpected baby doesn't mean an unexpected move out of Westminster. 128 two-bedroom homes is great. It creates a lot of new housing. It creates homes that people who can have an office or a place for a little one. It's also 40, excuse me, it's 42 bedrooms with a den. I don't know, I lived in a two-bedroom with a den when my wife and I both worked from home, and it was really nice. It gave us the ability to separate our work from our life, and it gave us a lot of access. We're still living in an apartment, but it felt like a home. New apartment buildings consist almost entirely of studios often when there are a lot of these projects. And one of the challenges of that is that it makes it really hard to build a life in Westminster, right? When we build these new projects, that's part of the challenge when we look at these really big green space requirements and balcony requirements is it makes it really hard to fit these larger units in when you have more bedrooms. These homes give folks flexibility. They allow that growth, that change. And this project is set to target that 70% AMI. As you as council members know, with the exception of maybe council member Brohas, 70% is really hard to target without government subsidies. These not having government subsidies make these projects really a big draw. They're a really good fit for Westminster. It's right along federal. I am a candidate for RTD in District K. We are going to build really good service along Federal. That's planned for a BRT route. If we can have more dense housing around it, it also gives us more incentive to offer better service and it creates a kind of a virtuous cycle where more service leads to better residents, leads to folks who don't need a car. And that kind of takes me to my final point. Parking minimums are banned in the state of Colorado if you're in a metropolitan planning organization like you all are. I encourage you to, especially on the parking front, not worry about parking over people. You have a chance to add a ton of new homes here and at Westminster, I would encourage you to take it. I urge you to approach the Pros Uplands Project and I would yield the rest of my time. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That was the last speaker. All right, thank you so much. With that, the time is now 8.28 p.m. and I will close the public meeting. May I have a motion? Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to conditionally approve the Official Development Plan for Uplands Filing 3, Block 1, Tract A, and Block 3. This recommendation is based on the finding that the proposed Official Development Plan complies with the criteria set forth in Section 11.515 of the Westminster Municipal Code if the following conditions outlined in the agenda memo are met, Condition 1, Condition 3, and Condition 5.

Thank you, do I have a second? Councilor Brahas?

Second.

Any further discussion? Mayor Pro Tem. I'm sorry, I'm looking at the conditions. So are we looking at not requiring condition two, which is the revision of the site design to provide screening of the parking? Sorry, let me revise it. Because you're trying to do the landscape and the balconies, right? Yeah. Okay.

I'll revise it.

Okay, we need a quick revision.

Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, and I apologize for that. I revise the motion to say section 11.5.15 of the Westminster Municipal Code if the following conditions are met. Condition one, condition two, and condition five.

Thank you. Mayor Portemony, follow-up? Thank you so much, Councilor. The motion has now been revised and seconded. Mayor Pro Tem.

I'll just say in terms of just deliberating on this, I hope that another pass can be made with the architecture. I appreciate that condition five does kind of shoot it back to a more rigorous review staff to allow them to have another say. I would love for the balconies, even though we're kind of looking at an expanded number of them and a reduction in size for them at least to meet that minimum, you know, consistent minimum depth to the extent possible. But yeah, I think what we're looking to achieve, I mean, we appreciate the housing option here and the outdoor amenities and trying to maximize that. So thank you to staff for being so thoughtful about adding these conditions in and trying to maintain a level of quality for us. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I just want to kind of give some coloring to my thoughts on how I'll be voting for this. But first I wanted to kind of just name some general thoughts that aren't explicitly tied to my vote. I just want to thank the applicant for kind of really helping Westminster thread the needle on how to make effective but also functional in both design and function in terms of housing. It's a careful balance of just not saying, hey, throw designs to the wind and just do what you want. And then it's a lot of conversation on, hey, here are the statutes around our design. And these are important for a variety of reasons. But as you get into the meat of the design, in practice there's some friction there and we're really interested in kind of that conversation and how we get out. So thank you to staff for really continually kind of pushing for, you know, attendance to those design guidelines and also for being really creative in your interpretation and trying to attend to what we're really getting to the applicant. With that said, I'm, you know, I'm positive I'm gonna vote in favor of this. I think it hits a lot of our standards for approval, particularly those which tend towards both design and the lack of impact on the surrounding area because it is intended for housing. And I think that this is a great opportunity to get some much needed kind of you know, very much market rate housing. And I think that's a goal of this council as well.

Thank you. And then online, Councilor Zotti.

Yeah, just wanted to say thankful, that I'm thankful to my fellow council colleagues for all of the thoughtful comments and questions that you guys had, some of which I had myself. But overall, thankful to staff for how flexible and creative they are trying to be, right? Because there are lots of exceptions. But we all need to kind of orient around the big crisis that's at hand, and that's the housing crisis. We have a huge gap, and this is really critical to filling that workforce housing gap. 70% AMI, I think. Unfortunately, it's not guaranteed forever, but Right now, our residents need more media help, right? And they need to be able to find a place close to where they work. And housing is key to that. Childcare is also key to that. And all of these competing crises just give us more of a reason to approve projects like this. So I'm supportive and I'm looking forward to saying yes.

Thank you. Councilor Haught?

Yeah, I'm happy to see an attainable housing project. And thank you to staff for all your work. And yeah, I'm excited to vote for this project.

Thank you. Councillor Ireland.

I will be voting no. We have not even thought about attainable housing. housing that people can own. All we do is apartments after apartments and with no parking.

Thank you. Back at Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. Just to wrap us up and do the lawyer thing. In the requirements set forth of the approval for standards for approval of the official development plan or amendments to development plans in Westminster Municipal Code, 11.5.15, I'm gonna vote yes because I believe it meets all of the requirements in subsection A, but to highlight a few of the important ones. Requirement three is that the plan exhibits the application of sound, creative, innovative, and efficient planning and design principles. I really appreciate what was put forward, understanding the area, living in this area. I think it would be a great addition with all of the efficient designs that were put in place. The plan is compatible as subsection five lays out and harmonious with the existing public and private developments in the area. touched on very briefly, but I think is really important is one of our strategic plan goals is that we develop mixed income communities. And I think with maker housing, with the summit point just South that is for, you know, that's market rate for rent, Prospector Point, which is for own. Uplands right across the way, which is denser single family and townhome developments that are for ownership. And then this project, I think we accomplished something really important, which is that not only is it compatible and harmonious, but it also accomplishes our big goal of developing mixed income communities. The plan in subsection seven has no significant adverse impacts on future land uses in the area. In fact, I think it is a really great land use of this area. And finally for subsection 13, the existing proposed streets, including as Mr. Farrington pointed out with federal providing BRT in this area, the density there will be much needed and appreciated as we continue to develop that public transit corridor. For those reasons, I will be a yes.

Thank you. And I'll add my own thoughts. And I'd like to hit back on a point Councilor Brahas made earlier about the mulch and just the land use. And we just mentioned how much we're trying to be water wise and think of that from a conservation standpoint. And permeable landscapes are really important to me. So for that, I'm willing to make exceptions like that. I feel like they're easy to come by. And just for me too, the less paving over the better. So I hope we can look at the parking space and the pavement and those walkways, make sure everything is ADA accessible. But if we don't need to pave it over, let's not. Sometimes I walk through an area and I'm like, this could have been mulch. Anyway, I would also agree that the plan is in general compatible and harmonious with the existing developments in the area for the similar reasons that Councilor Johnson mentioned, which is the maker housing right there and of course the uplands design in general and what we're aiming for as a council and as a city to provide attainable housing for residents. So I also am in favor of this.

With that, roll call please. Mayor Carmelia? Yes. Councilor Azadi?

Yes.

Councilor Haught? Yes. Councilor Ireland? No. Councilor Johnson?

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Ramella? Yes. And Councilor Barajas? Yes. The motion passes on a six one vote.

Thank you so much. With that, that brings us to our next public hearing. I would like to be cognizant. Thank you all, by the way, for everyone taking off. Thank you all. I'd like to recognize our representative as she walks out the door. Thank you for joining us tonight, Representative Goldstein. All right, with that, that brings us to our next public hearing. However, I'd like to call for a five-minute break. I'd like council to be very cognizant of time. This is a very long evening, so I'm gonna give a hard five minutes.

Can I make a request before that? Yes. Thank you, Mayor. Given that we're already running pretty late in the night with a lot of work left, and we have some staff hanging around for us. I would like to move or make a motion to move our post-meeting study session to a future study session potentially next week so that we don't have to keep staff around if we're gonna do it at the end anyways.

Thank you. Before I ask for a second, city manager, do we have a fairly light agenda next week for study session? We can accommodate that.

Mayor, thank you. And Councilor Johnson, thank you. We have an unusually light study session next week. We've had some items that were not ready, so they will not be advanced for next week. So I would... I would say, Councilor Johnson, that that would make sense, that we can have our staff leave tonight and be prepared to come in next Monday in study session format for these two items.

Thank you, City Manager. Okay, do I have a second? Second. Excellent. Any further discussion, especially from folks online? I want to make sure you have a chance to speak up.

Okay. I have a question. Is that the... Sorry, I couldn't hear much on that. Did you say the post-meeting, the two? Was that the child care?

Yes, so Councilor Johnson is moving to move the child care discussion to next week's study session so that we would close the meeting at the end of the public portion.

The child care and the tax exemptions. Thank you.

Can we have it like we did with the chicken ordinance where we bring it back maybe in two weeks as an ordinance so that we don't do this and then continue to push it?

It'll be like in a study session before the next city council meeting. So I think like it's like we'll still get to discuss it before the city council meeting is my understanding.

Thank you, counselor. Mayor Pertan.

When would the ordinance come to us after next week?

Councillor Dave Frankel, City Attorney, my office is glad to draft ordinances when we have direction, so I think it would be quite helpful for us to have a discussion on the 20th to get direction from City Council as to what those ordinances need to contain.

Oh, I thought this was reviewing the ordinance, but it's not. It's reviewing the content that would go into the ordinance?

That is correct. I believe city attorney can correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that staff is going to provide some options for us to review. And then we provide direction when we have that discussion.

That's my understanding. Yes, Mayor, that the study session presentation, whether it was at the end of this meeting or on the 20th would be an overview of the issue. And we would ask for some direction if I may look to the manager to confirm or correct.

Thank you Mr. Frankel and I could tell Councillor Azadi the staff has really looked deeply into both of these and so depending on Council's direction on these nights we can turn these around into ordinances provided Council does give direction to do so. I'm not sure if we would turn them fast enough to get on the 27th agenda because after a Monday night meeting, that's really two working days to produce those ordinances and post them. So I would suggest that we would strive for the next regular meeting of city council.

Councilor Azadi.

Okay.

Thank you. Mayor Pro Tem, any further thought? No, not anymore.

I could just add something.

Councillor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. It was my understanding based on reviewing the materials ahead of the meeting that both of the proposals are for the next coming fiscal year anyways in terms of tax exemptions and property rebate exemptions. So whether we wait a week or two weeks or three weeks, the timeline to build up and build these into the city's future fiscal impact wouldn't take effect until then, even if we passed it. Is that correct?

No, I read the tax one would be right when we would be this year. And the other one would be also have allocation for this year.

That's one consideration of the city council to come during that. Larry Doerr, deputy city manager, that's one of the items of consideration. Staff believes it's at least a 60 to 90 day implementation period for either one of those. Of course, if it was the pleasure of council to implement those on January 1st, that could be done also. So that's a little bit of the timeline and the give and take of a post-meeting discussion item or study session.

Thank you so much. Okay, any final thoughts, Councillor Azadi? Oh, sorry, city attorney.

Thank you, Mayor. There is one other consideration with regard to the child care provider property tax rebate program under the state statute. The city would need to provide a minimum of 30 days notice to the counties before first reading of an ordinance creating such a program.

That is good information to have. Thank you. Any final thoughts, Councillor Azadi?

Yeah, and that 30-day notice is why I was hesitating on moving this because that just adds more time.

All right, thank you so much. So we had a good discussion. I'm gonna call the vote. City Clerk?

Councilor Barajas? Yes. Mayor Carmelia? Yes. Councilor Azadi?

Yep.

Councilor Haught? Yes. Councilor Ireland. Yes. Councilor Johnson.

Yes.

And Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. The motion passes on a 7-0 vote.

Thank you so much. Okay, with that, we've got a tight five. Let's resume at 8.50. Thank you all so much.

do do you . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. . .

Thank you, welcome back and we will now move on to our second public hearing. The time is now 8.51 and I would like to open our second public meeting of the evening. Does staff have a presentation?

Let's drag it over.

All right.

All right, good evening, Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, and City Council. My name is Carson Beyerhoff, planner with the city's planning division. As part of bringing this project before you, a staff agenda memo has been created and tonight's public hearing has been properly noticed. The agenda memo, its associated attachment, tonight's PowerPoint presentation, and the public notices as sent with the mail notices and the posted sign notices are hereby entered into the public record at this time. The notices of the public hearing were mailed to 179 property owners, tenants, and HOAs within 1,000 feet of the parcel under consideration tonight. Two public notification signs were posted on the subject property in both English and Spanish languages. The city has also posted the hearing date and time on its website. The approximately 1.25 acre subject property is a currently vacant site located on the southeast corner of West 108th Avenue and Wadsworth Parkway as identified in red on the vicinity map. On the left of the slide, you will see the current comprehensive plan land use designation commercial. The adjacent image on the right shows the proposed comprehensive plan land use designation amendment to service commercial. The image on the right shows the specific lot two that would be amended with this proposed change and its relation to the surrounding and existing employment flex land use designation on the remainder of Mandalay Gardens track 10. In the 2013 update to the Comprehensive Plan, the land use designation for the larger Mandalay Gardens Track 10 property was changed from business park to retail commercial to preserve retail commercials for the Westmoreland area and offset the loss of the previously designated retail commercial land uses across Wadsworth, which was re-designated to residential through the 2013 update. In 2019, the property owner applied for and received approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to change seven of the nine anchors from commercial to flex light industrial. As part of the 2019 comprehensive plan amendment approval, staff committed to only supporting one, a multi-tenant retail commercial building for the 1.25 acre lot, which would be required to maintain the 2013 retail commercial designation. two, that a freestanding pad would be prohibited, and three, that automobile uses would be limited or potentially prohibited. The 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 2023 and retained the commercial designation for Lot 2. The commercial designation limits auto-oriented uses to be part of a larger commercial development and limits service commercial land uses to be located away from gateway locations and major intersections. section 11-521 of the westminster municipal code contains 10 criteria that are to be considered when reviewing land use plan amendments these cover compliance with city regulations and policies analysts of planning and impacts on surrounding communities site restraints and impacts on existing infrastructure Staff received this comprehensive plan amendment from the applicant to allow for the development of a fuel station with convenience store. The proposed land use amendment conflicts with the general area's demand for commercial uses and the comprehensive plan's vocational considerations for service commercial land use character areas. Staff finds that the proposal generally does not meet the criteria considerations for land use plan amendments as noted in the staff agenda memo. Section 11514 of the Westminster Municipal Code contains 10 criteria that are to be considered when reviewing preliminary development plans and amendments. These include compliance with the comprehensive plan, sound planning, compatibility with the surrounding context, circulation and access, and performance standards related to site design and architecture. staff received this preliminary development plan amendment from the applicant to allow for the development of a fuel station with convenience store the proposed amendment would add automobile uses to the primary use allowances for lot two staff finds that the proposed amendment generally does not meet the criteria considerations for amendments to preliminary development plans as noted in the staff agenda memo Further, as noted in the summary of staff recommendation, City Council could approve either or both the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PDP Amendment subject to additional conditions. Staff does not recommend this option because the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and PDP Amendment do not meet the standards of criteria. However, if either or both of the proposed amendments are approved, these conditions would ensure that the proposed development meets some of the criteria considerations and will be reviewed for compliance with the Official Development Plan Amendment. An official development plan amendment would be required as the next step for this proposed development and the development review process. A neighborhood meeting was held at the Walnut Creek Golf Preserve on October 15th, 2025. Primary concerns included one, general traffic concerns and more specifically freight traffic associated with the overall Track 10 development. The need for pedestrian safety to be addressed with the resulting increased traffic on Dover Street to the east. Three, concern with the proposed use not being suitable for the surrounding community with community expressing interest in other types of commercial land uses. Four, concern with the project's design and visibility towards the surrounding community. And five, environmental impacts from the proposed use. And questions about how those would be mitigated. As part of the applicant's response to traffic and pedestrian safety concerns, the applicant agreed to mitigate these concerns with traffic calming measures. If either or both of the proposed amendments are approved, the alternative conditional approval would ensure that this agreement is captured by the applicant and will be reviewed for compliance with the official development plan amendment. Staff recommends that city council hold a public hearing and deny the comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary development plan amendment. On April 28th, 2026, Planning Commission recommended denial of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and Preliminary Development Plan Amendment by a vote of four to three. Staff finds that a recommendation of approval of the application would conflict with the city's strategic plan priorities of opportunity to thrive and vibrant and diverse economy, as the request facilitate a highway-oriented auto-dependent land use that does not address the missing retail services from this area and the employment centers in the area indicating a desire for such use to support the local workforce, which would be undermined by approval of a convenience store with gas station at this location. The applicant is with us tonight and has a presentation to share with you as well. Thank you for your attention. There are other members with us, other staff members with us this evening. We'd be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you so much. Before we move on to the applicant's presentation, do we have any questions for staff from council? Online? Okay, I will say let's move on to the applicant's presentation. Thank you so much.

Hi, good evening. Thank you for having me here, Mayor, Council, appreciate it. Excited to be here. My name is Braxton Key. I work for Quick Trip. Been a longtime employee, started at 16 years old. About to celebrate my 15th anniversary with Quick Trip, so super excited about that. Did I disconnect? Can you hear me now? Get online. Okay, again, I'm Braxton Keehan with Quick Trip. Been a longtime employee of the company, started at 16, about to celebrate my 15th anniversary with Quick Trip. QTA is more than a gas station. I would also like to tout that we are about to make our Colorado corporate headquarters here in Westminster at 10249 Church Ranch Way, Suite 110. We're waiting on CFO currently, but we'll be moving shortly. also before i begin i would like to enter a letter of support for this project to public record if that's okay So we are Quick Trip. We have been a perennial member of Forbes top 100 companies to work for. We donate roughly, you know, 5% of our profits, sometimes more, it depends on the year, to charitable giving within communities. Some of those charitable things that we've done within the Denver Metro area are the Porchlight Foundation, United Way, Folds of Honor, Family Tree, the Savio House, Colorado Children's Hospital, Commerce City PD, and then the Denver Police Department, amongst many others that I don't have enough time to list. The other thing that I want to touch on before I hand it over to David Foster, our attorney, is that each store generates about 20 to 25 initial jobs that are created. That is an initial job count. We anticipate to be in your community for roughly 30 to 50 years at that location. So that is over 100 up to 400 jobs created within our time frame of being in your community. So with that, I'd like to give all my time over to our attorney, David Foster.

Good evening, Council. My name is David Foster, 360 South Garfield, Denver. Before I begin, I wanted to just make sure, I know we had some issues in terms of documents that may have not made it into the record, so I just wanted to ensure that this letter... that was on my letterhead from April 27th was received and is in the record? Does this look at all familiar? It's not in the staff packet, so that's why I'm asking.

Why don't we hand that to our city clerk just to make sure we all have a copy. We'll review that now.

so that was um some uh something that we had submitted of course before the planning commission that's been part of the record a pretty important uh document um to review i'll make my way through it but um you know we'll we'll take it as it goes the other two documents i'd like to introduce uh to the record are uh this document this is a copy of a marked up odp for the site, so I'm gonna submit this to your clerk. And then finally, I'm going to submit, this was a document that we found online. This was from 2019, ordinance 3985, that staff spoke to in terms of the 2019 approval. There was a pretty long condition that was placed on there by staff. That's actually not part of the ordinance or the resolution that actually was approved by council. So I'm gonna introduce that into the record as well. So I know I gave you a lot to digest, and so let me begin, notwithstanding the fact that we view this differently than your staff, you have an exceptional staff, and I want to acknowledge that. And it's okay from time to time to disagree and to work through those issues, and that's what being here tonight in front of City Council is all about. Frankly, if I were sitting on the dais tonight, Mayor and Council, based on the presentation that I just saw, I probably wouldn't vote in favor of our request. But this is a history that is really very important that wasn't fully communicated through staff's presentation. It's communicated a little bit more in the letter that we submitted. But let me take a minute to walk through a little bit of the history. What am I pushing in order to advance? okay well duh the arrow um i also just quickly want to just introduce uh ryan harding uh craig romrell from uh quick trip uh aaron mclean uh from uh galloway and my colleague amelia stefan so we are prepared to answer questions that may arise and so Let me begin by mentioning that this is really a project that goes back to 2022. Because back in 2022, Quick Trip went under contract and actually purchased the property. It happens from time to time that properties that are desired for our use are larger than what we need. And so it is oftentimes the case that we end up purchasing something larger and then subdividing and selling off portions of it so that what remains is that corner that we had desired from the outset. It's exactly what happened in this particular instance. In fact, in 2022, when we bought the property, we also came to the city. And so there was full transparency. And I want that to be really, really clear tonight, that from the moment that Quick Trip was interested in this site, and by the way, that was in 2022, the comprehensive plan at that time allowed for our use on that corner, not as a secondary use, but as a principal use. And in fact, in 2022, there wasn't this differentiation between primary and secondary use. And that is an important piece of the history. We are not asking for a use that isn't already allowed under our existing comprehensive plan designation. So the use that we're looking to achieve is allowed, but it is allowed in your comprehensive plan today as a secondary use and not a primary use. And so that is an important consideration. Also, what I've submitted to you, that really significantly large document, was an ODP. That quick trip was a co-applicant with our ultimate purchaser of the seven and a half acres, because when we approached the city, to move forward with our project it was jointly determined that this site needed to be developed first and foremost as the industrial or the employment flex that was a primary goal for this city to see the larger site developed first and so acquiescing to that request quick trip joined with their contract purchaser and submitted that ODP and that's the document that you all have in front of you. What is important about that, and I'll move on to this next slide, this is a bit of a timeline. This timeline is important because it got pretty confusing at the Planning Commission. And by the way, I don't know if anybody watched the Planning Commission from back in April. I want to also share with you, you have commissioners that take their jobs very seriously. It was a robust discussion. obviously participated back in April, but I had an opportunity to rewatch and I was appreciative for the conversation. I wasn't appreciative for the result, but I was appreciative with the conversation. So what was clear to me is we didn't communicate well enough in that hearing to get the result that we were seeking. So we're gonna do better tonight. So this is the timeline. What's important here is 2013, the retail commercial character type was adopted for the entire site. I'm gonna call it 10 acres. It's less than 10 acres. And then in 2019, that's when the previous owner had endeavored to change the comp plan to allow for the industrial or flex property. And you see it says PA2. In 2023, we have a comp plan update. And in that comp plan update, and this is kind of the, this is what tonight's conversation, frankly, is all about, is the remaining retail commercial site had the opportunity to be classified either commercial or service commercial. And at that point, the determination was commercial instead of service commercial. Had it been service commercial, we wouldn't be here and we'd be moving forward with our PDP and our ODP and developing the site. Unfortunately, there was, I would consider it maybe an error. It certainly was something that was surprising. And why I say that is because The document that I sent, the larger document, was the 2022 submittal of the ODP, which went through a process and ultimately was approved in 2025. You'll see on that document that you have in front of you, and now I'm making reference to this document, This document, you can see the date on there as May 5th, 2023. That is in fact two months after the comprehensive plan had already been approved and changed in the city. And if you go to the third page of that document, you'll see that there are two planning areas. There's planning area one, which was what was mostly at issue for that ODP review. And that was for the employment flex space. And then the top left corner, you'll see three notes. They're in blue. And you'll note that these are comments, and you can go back to the first page, from Jacob Kaza with the city. Jacob is the one responsible for the blue comments in that section. You'll see it says proposed lot two, part of planning area two. And then beneath that, you'll read that it says, Well, you may be able to read it. I need to move it about 10 feet further away. That for this lot, do you want to show the gas station now so you don't have to go through another ODP? There was some conversation at the Planning Commission, and I want to be abundantly clear about this. that that reference in that note from staff is a reflection obviously of conversations that were taking place at the time. That isn't, and I again want to be abundantly clear, that isn't something that we would look at an ODP and say we have a right to develop on that site. But it certainly is a reflection of what was in people's minds at the time that this ODP was being processed. And why that's important is because in July of 2024, in July of 2024, what we have is we have submitted for the development of our use and at that time we were told by staff that we're going to have to seek a new comprehensive plan amendment to allow for that use and that's frankly what surprised quick trip because they had been relying on their conversations their transparency through the process and to be told that in july of 2024 was surprising So here you have on this slide the request. And the request is that the 2023 comp plan update had two designations, as I mentioned, and what was interesting to us at the Planning Commission were conversations between Commissioner Carpenter, who was around at the time, who had familiarity with this. And he said, you know, it was always our understanding that when we are modifying citywide our comprehensive plan, that we look to create a like for like situation. We don't want people to lose a right as we are amending and adopting a new comprehensive plan. Unfortunately, That's exactly what happened in 2023 because Quick Trip, who had purchased the property in 2022, who had met with the city, who had worked with the city, who had gone through a process with this ODP for the employment flex, was caught with a circumstance where now their use was entirely secondary. Now you could argue as I did originally that we're still secondary because the project was the original nine and a half acres and we're still secondary and if you look in your comprehensive plan under commercial as opposed to service commercial as long as you are secondary as long as you are part of a larger project that is what you consider secondary but it's a commercial use and it's the employment flex and in that particular circumstance we don't meet a very technical reading of the comprehensive plan and so that's what leads us here tonight to ask for your approval in um amending the comprehensive plan The criteria, and again, my letter goes into some detail around the criteria that we meet. Again, I don't think you can look at this criteria that we're reviewing in a vacuum. I think you have to look at the criteria as I've shared the history of this site and the story. That being said, I will share that Your comprehensive plan has a number of examples where we meet the criteria within which we're seeking approval. you can look to goal lu1 in balanced land uses achieving a balance of uses in the city including employment residential cultural destination attractions and retail as well as full range of amenities necessary to support a vibrant and resilient community if you've been to a quick trip I will tell you it's unlike other convenience gas stations. It has fresh food, it has a grocery, limited grocery, and it is unlike anything that you've experienced. Also, Goal LU2, specifically 2.1 and 2.2. I'm not going to read all of these in detail. I'm going to observe the Mayor's thought at brevity. But this is an important issue that we're asking you to consider tonight. Goal ER4, promoting a balance of differing development types and locations. Goal ER7, promoting fiscal sustainability and resilience within local government. Right now we have a vacant site and we're asking to build a project on that site. And then finally, on page 95 of your comprehensive plan, there's a section on Westmore and vicinity employment area. And the very highlighted section I think that the staff had was employers have expressed a desire for restaurant and services. We serve fresh to make food and it's a grocer and we have a fueling station. And so we do provide many of the services that are likely articulated in this comprehensive plan. So that's criteria one. Criteria two, that the proposed amendment serves a substantial public purpose and will not substantially be detrimental to the surrounding lands. This use is already allowed. So we're not debating whether or not, again, this isn't a rezoning, so we're not debating whether or not there's a use that fits or not. We're talking about whether or not the principal use is allowed. This is still the phase two of a larger project, and I do believe that we are located next to an industrial. You can read the criteria that we identify on the screen for yourselves or in the letter that we've provided. A proposed amendment shall consider the nature and degree of impacts on neighboring lands. Again, we're not identifying a use that's not already allowed. And this is something that the city had full knowledge of dating back to 2022. I don't believe, so let me make this very clear, I don't believe that there were bad actors on either side of this conversation. I don't believe that the city staff intentionally directed us to go through an ODP to get an employment flex and then change the comprehensive plan so we couldn't actually build our building on the corner. It happened, but I don't think that was intentional and I don't think it was malicious. But what we're asking for tonight is for that correction because that's a process that this city It really is better then, and we are hopeful that you will grant that amendment tonight. The remaining criteria that the proposed amendment is necessary in order to address substantially changed conditions, well, the first substantially can change condition is we now have seven and a half acres of flex office built, which was exactly what was anticipated. That's a humongously changed condition. The proposed amendment provides for the orderly physical growth of the city. Again, in conjunction with the city, we went through the ODP and the flex office was built first, or the flex industrial was built first. That is precisely orderly physical growth. uh proposed amendment furthers an important public policy we're not going to win on the housing conversation that you just had uh about a half an hour ago we're not building uh affordable housing but we are building services that people need use and appreciate within their communities The proposed amendment is appropriate in order to address a uniqueness in size, shape, and character of the parcel. It's a smaller corner lot and our fueling, charging, and food offerings present a unique opportunity to have commercial retail sales and service use on this property. won't negatively impact the transportation system. We are willing to live with the condition that staff mentioned earlier that was identified through our process, happy to do that. Proposed amendment will not negatively impact referral agents. None of that was mentioned. And the proposed amendment establishes minimal environmental impacts or has sufficiently mitigated any identified impacts, which we do in our business. And we can speak to the way in which we build our facilities. Madam Mayor, I would... You have to amend the comprehensive plan before we even get to a PDP because the first criteria on the PDP is, are you consistent with the comprehensive plan? And so I don't want to belabor my presentation more than I likely already have because if you're unable to amend your comprehensive plan consistent with our request, we have no reason to seek the PDP, although we do meet the criteria of the PDP. I'm happy to go through that. Again, it's in the letter, it's in the myriad of slides that we have presented and that are in the packet as well. With that, I am done with being a land use attorney here tonight. You're getting probably more than you bargained for, but anyhow, this is something I've appreciated your time and patience with.

Thank you so much. Okay, are there any questions from council for staff or for the applicant at this time?

Mayor Pro Tem Namilla. Thank you. For staff first, the statement that we have quoted on our presentation regarding the nature of the commercial use, where was that written originally? Because if it wasn't on Whereas the 2019 Counselor's Bill, I'm just kind of curious where we had it.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Jacob Kaza, principal planner for current development for the city of Westminster. So we were not permitted to include that with our ordinance at the time. At that time, the city attorney's office didn't want us to include conditions on our ordinances. So instead, we included it as a note in the agenda memo so it would signify our intent for a future date, for a future thing. At the time, it was a large discussion with the current property owner, Abash Rajabi, and his ownership group about what they would do with the remainder of that parcel if they wanted to leave retail commercial. And again, our concern was that we'd end up here having to discuss a gas station and we wouldn't get some of those other services we were seeking to help support the businesses in Westmore Tech Park, such as things like retail eateries, grocery stores, daycares, those sort of uses.

Right. And I very much remember these conversations, not the 2019 one, but the 2022. And even I wrote the 2013 comp plan. So I very well remember the goal for that whole intersection and the I also know that we did have a separate service commercial designation that was intentionally created to identify where we wanted service uses like gas stations versus retail. And that's why that site was designated retail versus that's, you know, the land use classification for service. And I know in the newer comp plan, we maintain that designation. However, I do, now I'm vague on memory of in 2022, I was here on council along with council Rosati, trying to think of anyone else. And I know we saw that the item come through and I remember questioning that, I just don't know. I know that we were concerned about shared staff's concern about wanting to have the retail there. Obviously the PDP was, approved and a subsequent ODP to allow for the flex employment use as the primary use I know quick trip presented and at some point, either in 22 or 23. I'm just like, I'm trying to piece together. I feel like this was done in a piecemeal fashion in terms of the approvals.

Yeah, thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. So yes, originally the first request came through with just a comprehensive plan amendment that was done back in 2019. At the time, there was no gas station involved at all at that time. That previous ownership group then went on to go ahead and sell the property. I believe they sold it directly to Quick Trip. I don't think there was a third party involved at the time. And that sale, I believe, took place in 2022. In 2023, the city adopted the 2040 Comprehensive Plan. That's really what changed everything and changed the equation here. So that was adopted in March of 2023. Their application was in May of 2023. So we had already completed their pre-application submittal. And our pre-application analysis was based off of the 2013 comprehensive plan, which had auto service stations or a auto-oriented uses are a limited category, so they're not a primary use in the 2013 comprehensive plan under the retail commercial category. They were allowed under a service commercial, and I do appreciate you acknowledging that. Service commercial was a category in the 2013 plan, and we carried that over into the 2040 comprehensive plan. So any parcel that was service commercial went to service commercial. Any parcel that was retail commercial went to just commercial As we took, we dropped the name retail. So there wasn't, we didn't change this property or down zone it in any sort of way. It wasn't service commercial before. It was always retail commercial. So we just went straight to commercial on this one. Specifically there, since I'm the one who made the comment that's up on the question, it was always their intent that they wanted to pursue a gas station. Per our phasing and our retail commercial design guidelines, they're required to build 50% of the overall development and can't build any secondary uses as part of a first phase or pad buildings as a part of a first phase. And so we directed them that they need to pursue the larger development first before they pursue any future development. So they did. They worked with Altus to build and come up with that plan. When they submitted their application in May, they did not include a gas station. I thought that was odd and unusual knowing that that was their intent and they could come up with a phasing plan that would have just been words and text. and would have said, this is our intent for the phasing. They chose not to do that, as my question indicated. What you're not seeing is the response to comments that came back from their development team that said, we're not including that in this application. It will be developed by a separate team at a later date. And so they chose not to pursue with pursuing entitlements at that time. And honestly, I stopped researching the topic. Subsequent to this, we actually found out when Quick Trip came back last year or in 2024, that the secondary uses were prohibitive of what they wanted to do in the 2040 comprehensive plan. So that is a changed condition in the comprehensive plan that was deliberate on staff to provide clarity for what does a limited use do. In the 2013 comprehensive plan, we didn't have any language on what a limited use was. There was some brief language about, well, we probably shouldn't put it next to parks, hence why we didn't support their application at City Park in 2019 and 2020 as well. That might be the one you're also remembering, Mayor Pro Tem Nirmala is their application at the city park facility.

I do remember that one too.

So that was what the limit of what, that was the guidance as far as what is limited was kind of that loose language. And so the city staff as part of the 2040 Comprehensive Plan put together some information about how we would limit those uses in a character so we wouldn't overwhelm a character area with all secondary uses. And so that's kind of why we're here today is that secondary use restriction.

Yeah, I'm trying. So when we approved, I guess, with the ODP, I mean, we just, well, I feel like we knew Quick Trip was going to be there. Did they come in for concept plan or something? I'm trying to remember.

That would have been before concept plan.

Yeah, I know. Okay. So, I mean, they presented.

They were the property owner at the time. I'm not sure, though, if they were part of the presentation.

I know they presented because I remember my husband was working over at Ball and he wanted more restaurants. And I remember Quick Trick was not quite what I... I remember all of that. So I'm thinking... I feel like I'm trying to understand the decision-making around it because... you know, I just don't remember what the thought was. I feel like we knew there was gonna be a quick trip and that there was that first phase of development. And so I'm just trying, yeah, I'm trying to just understand that the sequence of decision-making and what actually got recorded versus not.

Yeah, and what's recorded for the permitted uses is exactly what the comprehensive plan allows. It's verbatim exactly the same language. So it lists both primary and secondary uses using the exact same words out of the comprehensive plan as it is today. And then it says secondary uses NFAR will be managed through the comprehensive plan, which institutes a 25% limit on secondary uses. Hence, you can't build anything if it's the entire character area. Mm-hmm, but I feel like this is seen as a secondary use in relation to the larger building even though it was employment I don't know that staff characterized it at the 2024 presentation That is not how the comprehensive plan reads the plans or plan is pretty clear that the care that the secondary uses are allotted to a Character area and it defines character area as a character type and so it's pretty clear that that you can only look at that one And I would say it'd be a very dangerous precedent for us to say, well, now we'll start including this as part of your character area, because where do I stop? Do I go across the street and include the Olsen Tech Park? Do I include Ball? I mean, just this question of like, where do you stop? And so it's pretty reasonable to keep it at just that character area.

So hence the need to, I mean, if we change the comp plan designation to service, commercial, then that resolves any precedent of allowing a secondary use to proceed under retail?

Correct. And that's why they're pursuing the service commercial category is because that will eliminate the secondary use restriction.

Okay. I think I'm good with my questions. Thank you.

We do have a couple other items for the presentation we'd like to rebut at a later time whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Let's get through a few more questions. Let's go ahead and present the rest of the materials before we ask further questions.

Thank you, Mayor, and thank you, City Council. So really quick couple items we'd like to rebut from the applicant's presentation, and just to clarify from our presentation as well. So our apologies, we used the word condition on what we meant as what staff wrote in the agenda memo. That's not a condition of approval or a condition of their comprehensive plan. that was what staff would would condition any future staff support on and that was what we were we had led into um prior to a quick trip filing their filing their pre-application submittal in 2022. And then I did already touch on this, but the auto-oriented uses was listed as a limited use and not a permitted use in the 2013 comprehensive plan. So just to clarify, it was still a limited item in the prior 2013 comprehensive plan. It's never been a straight permitted item in the comprehensive plan. And then as I've mentioned, the Quick Trip application came after the 2040 Comprehensive Plan was adopted by City Council in March of 2023. They applied in May of 2023. I also mentioned this service commercial existed in the 2013 Comprehensive Plan. When we adopted the 2040 comprehensive plan, anything that was service commercial went to service commercial, and anything that was retail commercial went to commercial. We just dropped the retail out of it. So we didn't down zone this property. It simply stayed with the same designation. The next item is the comprehensive plan does not entitle the land uses, so those are only done by a PDP and ODP. The PDP and ODP that are valid for this property do allow auto-oriented uses or a gas station as a secondary use and only within the PA2, boundary um which doesn't actually entitle anything because again they don't have anything shown there so it's a secondary use so um and as it says it will be limited and restricted by the comprehensive plan the comprehensive plan doesn't allow any of those secondary uses until they establish a primary use and then even then the secondary uses cannot be more than 25 percent of the character area so that'd be um you know a quarter of an acre or less in size um and then so the staff comments also on the red lines evolve throughout any technical review at the time of that comment that i made in 2023 my understanding was that they wanted to pursue a gas station i thought it was weird that they didn't include in their initial application i thought it was weird they didn't do a phasing plan that's why i commented on it we stopped the conversation there after they replied that will be done by a separate team in a separate application so we stopped researching it and I didn't go any further than making them copy the comp plan permitted use language. And then finally, the current PDP does not allow this use as we read it. So that's why they are here seeking the PDP amendment and also the comprehensive plan amendment. And then we'll have available if you guys have any more questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Maren. This is probably more questions for staff. I'm trying to grapple with the change of the comprehensive plan and the timing of the application and understanding that the application came after the 2040 comprehensive plan. But in a scenario, because obviously while the application came in before the comprehensive plan, the property was purchased with intent. understand that if this were submitted three months prior, so prior to the adoption of the 2040 comprehensive plan, if the project would have been submitted, would it have just been approved as a non-conforming use because it was it was submitted prior to the 2040 plan amendment or would there have been other barriers?

So counselor, when we adopted the 2040 comprehensive plan, we didn't include any provisions that allowed it for like a grace period that if you were in the development review, but that also wouldn't be germane to this application because they didn't include the gas station with that application that was in pre-app. They pursued that entire application all the way through and they did get their PDP and ODP entitled. on the property and it has the uses listed on it currently. So in effect, they didn't pursue a gas station use. While that might have been what they listed on the pre-op, it was not what they put on their ODP and PDP and presented to city council.

Okay, then the other question I have then is the PDP and the ODP for the remaining however many acres was approved. but there's been no movement or development in that area. But even if there was development of the remainder of the approved ODP area, this would still not be a conforming secondary use because the size is too many acres? Is that what you're saying?

Yes, so the PDP and ODP encompass the entire nine-acre parcel, which includes the undeveloped portion that Quick Trip is asking to develop. So the way we would look at character areas per the comprehensive plan is character areas are limited to a character type. So you have to look at just what on the map is colored the exact same color. So up at this location, at this intersection, this is the only property that is retail or sorry, commercial in the 2040 comprehensive plan. In the beginning of chapter three in the comprehensive plan, it spells out how secondary uses are applied. Secondary uses are limited to no more than 25% of a character area. And so for this character area, that's about 1.25 acres, and so they could only utilize a quarter of that land for secondary uses, whereas we would state that the site plan they're showing would be 100% of that 1.25 acres, effectively.

Thank you. Councillor Brawhouse?

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you for the presentation to both the applicant and staff. I have a few questions for staff. And I also would ask our city attorney if I'm not sure the line of questioning that I have can fit within this public hearing. So I'm going to ask some history questions for the greater Westminster area. And if those fall out, just I don't know. If they're allowed, that's great. But just feel free to chime in. So when Mayor Pro Tem mentioned that there's designations in the comp plan for auto service, gas stations, what criteria was used? So I'm trying to understand, okay, let's say there's a place that a quick trip would not even need an amendment and it can just kind of go in. What kind of space is that? What does it typically look like? And how did we determine that those areas should fit this as opposed to kind of this area?

Thank you, counselor. So we use the comprehensive plan as our guiding document. It leads the development review team and our negotiations on a daily basis. That is the direction from council that you have given to us to negotiate on behalf of the city for future developments. So there are two character areas that allow auto-oriented stations or self-service auto stations, gas stations. commercial and service commercial. Service commercial allows it as a primary use and so typically we are locating those as I believe our language in our comp plan is away from arterial intersections, kind of away from residential uses but near enough so that way people can utilize them when they need. Typically service commercial we like to see things like an auto body repair or repair shops, oil changes, as well as gas stations, kind of trying to And the whole intent there is we're keeping these little small little pocket districts where we'll have a couple of them throughout the city, four, five, six of them. And you can go there to seek this auto services that you're really needing because that's what that's intended to be is kind of concentrate all of our auto services in one area. And then we'll focus on the other neighborhood retail uses in those other areas. So in commercial categories, commercial is very common in a lot of our major intersections, mostly because of vehicle trips and getting the visibility for the for the tenants that are gonna make up the center. So typically for a tenant, and actually a good one to bring up is Novera. The Novera Retail Center is planned at 136th and Huron. That's 20 acres in size. As a part of that is a quick trip. They will be one of the tenants there. They won't hold the intersection, the hard intersection of Huron and 136th. They'll actually be at 136th and Orchard. And we kind of have worked with them on site design there, but they've been very amenable and great to work with. and we kind of just are looking to see well the site has to be large enough and it has to have enough space to fit them in the retail commercial design guidelines also have additional locational criteria in them so we only allow a certain amount at four-way intersections and then we only allow so much within a distance with of each other and i can get you the exact numbers if you'd like those I mean that it's helpful the intent there is we don't want them to kind of proliferate because the challenge has always been if a gas station goes out of business they're typically a very hard used to redevelop and there are very there are small amount of users who will move into that space afterwards and and utilize the building so we see a lot of vacant gas stations and that can be a challenge for us at City.

I'm glad you brought that up Mr. Causey because that is kind of like my other question on June sorry on june 15th city manager andrews kind of uh highlighted a um you know a project that we did in historic westminster where we had to kind of do some amending to stinker gas station um and i was hoping if anyone on staff could kind of offer some insight into like what that like what the history of that site looked like because that is particularly what in in terms of the standards standards of approval um what i'm specifically looking for is can i argue that there will be no uh adverse impacts to existing or future use of this land from this and so We have, particularly in South Westminster, there have been multiple locations that have been difficult to infill because of and develop because of previously existing gas stations. And while I think that a lot of that had to do with maybe management and environmental regulations or lack thereof for those sites back then, and I don't think Quick Trip necessarily is, you know, I wouldn't put that on Quick Trip. pardon me, I just want to make sure that we do our due diligence with these very recent historical events being pertinent to what we've been doing. So my question is, could someone kind of give the story or history of Stinker and what that looks like? And is that appropriate or not? I guess this is the one that I was kind of wondering. Thanks, Counselor.

I think perhaps another way to ask that question could be ask for staff to explain their criteria and how they make recommendations on gas stations. I'd recommend that over getting into the details of other applications that are not part of tonight's record, and there's no evidence of those other applications and what may or may not have been in there. So I think we need to focus on this application tonight, but there's absolutely ways to, I think, ask for staff's... testimony on gas station considerations, if that's what you're intending to... Yeah, that's kind of what I'm trying to get to.

Yeah, I don't actually... Those specific sites aren't that pertinent, though I think just they tell us that we need to ask these questions today around criteria for, like, what kind of protections and what criteria do we have in these sites? You mentioned kind of making sure that they are parceled away and concentrated, so that way, you know... If you can kind of describe that.

Sure. So I think you're referring specifically to service commercial categories. So again, our goal there is to locate those generally away from major arterial intersections, away from neighborhoods and residents. I'd say sizable residential uses because we do have quite a few larger estate properties. And then also to... kind of concentrate them in a way that makes it so it's a logical place for people to understand. That's where you can go get automobile services of various different types. And so people are familiar, oh, if I need an oil change, I can pop over there. If I have an oil change, I can get a car wash. I can maybe get my car serviced, get my transmission fixed, and those kind of uses. we are intentional on where we locate those and there is locational language listed inside the comprehensive plan also on the service commercial character area type and then as i mentioned earlier the retail commercial design guidelines also have locational criteria as far as intersections and along a roadway how many you can place with there we base all of those regulations off of experiences for the city and experiences for us as a as a people and and kind of the impacts of gas stations as i've had I do believe they have changed. I don't think they're necessarily the same environmental contamination that we've seen. We do have quite a few remediation sites that are remediating underground leaks, and some of those are not gas stations, some are dry cleaners, but we actually have quite a few of those throughout the city where we have to mitigate from past leaky facilities and so some of that is it plays in but largely one of it one of the main concerns is what is it displace or what does it take up so if we go to you can go to an intersection i'm going to say huron and the 88th or 92nd and thornton it's four corners of of gas stations so what services are they not providing for the residents if you have that many so that's why we have that locational criteria is because if you go to the common denominator, oftentimes at a lot of commercial intersections, you get gas stations because they can all compete with each other and there is enough market because everybody's driving and passing by. But what they're not seeing is what other services are being displaced by having them there. And specifically here at this location, we have heard consistently from businesses in the westmore tech park businesses and lucent or olsen tech park that they are seeking additional services for their businesses we did never we've never heard them specifically say gas stations predominantly say restaurants but there's other things how about a copy a copy print shop or a fedex Those are other ones that we're interested in. And that's why we originally pursued with a prior landowner, a boss. He was showing us a site plan that was gonna build a multi-tenant retail building and we were in full support. And that's why we supported his application to leave a section of the property as retail commercial. I was never in support of that from the get-go until we got that promise out of him. And we just failed in getting that secured through the comprehensive plan amendment. ordinance as a specific condition. Cause you know, it's, it's really tricky with government. You have to learn exactly where to apply the pressure and where to apply the rules to make them hold over time. Um, then, and you know, you learn more as you go along.

So, okay. And then, um, you know, I just kind of echoing off mayor pro tems questions around kind of the process, um, of, of, of the changing. Um, and I don't, I want to be careful cause I don't, I can't repeat or I can't, uh, I don't have mastery of the same language that you did when you described the process of, you know, it didn't down zone. We didn't like, you know, rezone in that, the new comp plan that was adopted in 2024, 2023.

Counselor, I hate to, I don't want to impose anything, but I just want to be mindful of the time on each of our comments to make sure we get through that third public hearing.

Thank you. Just, is there... Is there any communication that happens to any applicants around when there's a new comp plan, I should say, for any applicants who have applications in process? Is there any sort of communication that happens to those?

um yes counselor so we we do tend to do a lot of public outreach actually with this 2040 comprehensive plan we did the most public outreach we've ever done with any comprehensive plan um through different various means of of meetings and letters and such i couldn't tell you specifically if we sent an email or some sort of communication to the quick trip corporation and told them fyi your comprehensive plan in the 2040 is going to change from retail commercial to commercial But when we did communicate with other people, we were saying, and I believe that's what Mr. Foster was communicating, was that we said we weren't going to down zone anybody, which was generally correct. I mean, effectively the comprehensive plan is not a zoning. It is similar in a way, but it's not the same thing. They're not entitled to use this on the comprehensive plan. They have to get a PDP and ODP entitled. So when they did apply for their PDP and ODP application, and we asked them, do you wanna include the gas station use? it didn't materialize, they did not put it on their use. So I guess that was their opportunity to have this conversation at that public hearing rather than have that conversation now. Okay, thank you for that.

Do we have further thoughts here? Sorry, go ahead.

I've been sitting on my hands a little bit. I've wanted to answer a few of the questions, but I really wanted to give your staff an opportunity to speak, and Jacob has done a very good job. I want to focus on a couple of very specific things. First, the limitation that people speak of is written. Let me read it to you It says auto service stations convenience stores drive-through facilities and other similar uses may be limited and may not be allowed in areas that directly about residential districts public quasi public or institutional uses or public spaces That's what was in your comprehensive plan That's what existed when my clients bought the property, and that is precisely what has changed as a result of the 2023 comprehensive plan modification. My clients were not sent notice. And what's interesting about that, and this gets into legal issues that on it I don't want to kind of go through but that was one site one 1.25 acre site that was being changed in terms of its comprehensive plan you operate you I know that you know this you operate very differently in Westminster your comprehensive plan has far more regulatory effect than almost any other comprehensive plan I've seen in Colorado In fact, you even have a provision in your code that speaks to uses generated through the comprehensive plan. And Mayor, you actually spoke to it earlier in tonight's conversation about the importance of your comprehensive plan. What I mean by that is when you modified, and when I say you, you weren't here, when you modified the site and made it commercial instead of service commercial. You absolutely regulatorily changed what my clients could do on that site. That's not even debatable after the half an hour of conversation we've had. We know that to be a fact now. And I read to you the limitation language from the comprehensive plan prior to 2023. And now we can't build it. And Mayor Pro Tem, you're 100% right. I actually think the better argument in all of this is to say this is part of the larger project. Still is. Still is. This is still the corner that's being developed that everybody knew about. You know how we know that? Because nobody's here. And I promise you, when we rezone and entitle gasoline stations, everybody shows up, but everybody knew and knows about this project and they've known it ever since we bought the site in 2022, including the staff. Why didn't we include our our fueling station on somebody else's application? Well, it was somebody else's application. It was Altus. We had to sign it because we were the owner, but we weren't, that wasn't our ODP. That wasn't our use. That wasn't our entitlement. Those weren't even our engineers. So why would we have included our future use? And so those are really important historic issues that make this issue very different. And that's why I said, if I was coming here tonight asking for a comp plan amendment based on you know just kind of going forward from trying you would deny me in a heartbeat but that's not what this is this has a real process issue and a real procedure issue and a real notice issue and the fact councilman that you know and that you knew of the quick trip on this site because i know you guys sat in that room and you had a concept plan around this prior to them moving forward Couple of other things, I just wanted to speak, your question about the impact was an interesting one. I've actually never had anybody talk about an impact of a use that may not exist 40 years from now as a criteria. But let me address that because we pull all tanks and demolish a building when we're done with our use. That is what QuickTrips protocol is. I don't know what other stations do, but that's what we do, what we've done, what we'll continue to do. And then finally I will just say page 9 of the staff report speaks to some alternatives and one of the issues and one of the alternatives was the siting of the building which would require us to really modify some stuff, move the building around, move the canopies around. We've spoken to our engineers and we can we can meet that condition. I know that staff isn't supportive of this request, but if relocating the canopies in the building is something that makes sense for the city. We're happy to work with the staff in modifying and accommodating. So I just wanted to mention those few things.

Thank you, Mr. Foster. I'm going to go to our counselors online. I'm going to go in the same order I've been doing to cause less confusion. So, counselor Azadi, any questions for the applicant or staff?

No.

Okay, thank you. Councillor Haught, any questions or thoughts? No, thank you. And Councillor Ireland, any questions or thoughts?

So I wanna know if there was any neighbors or businesses or anything in support of this. because I'm just hearing the ones that weren't in support of it, those that supported it besides Quick Trip.

Thank you for your question, Counselor. We're about to head over to public comment, and there might be folks in the room to speak to that. Okay, also...

Just real quick, the letter that I submitted earlier is in support of the QuikTrip as well.

I'm sorry, Councillor, one second. Would you please come to the podium and restate that answer?

Yes, the item that I submitted to record at the beginning of my testimony is a support letter in support of this project.

Thank you. And you'd restate your name and the company that you're referencing?

Yeah, Braxton Key. I'm with QuikTrip Corporation. That's right.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you. Sorry. Go ahead, Councillor Ireland.

And how far is the nearest gas station to this?

I think, I mean, I know the area well enough. I think I can answer that, but that's not appropriate.

So I'm going to let, uh, here we go. Uh, the nearest gas station is in front of the airport. Uh, it's a seven 11 station across from apartments and next to an Arby's in miles. Do we know it's in Broomfield though? It's not in Westminster. Okay.

Do we know about how many miles away that is?

I'm not sure off the top of my head. Okay.

Would you come real quick to the podium?

Yeah, roughly a mile.

Okay, thank you. Did you hear that, counselor?

No, I did not. It's 0.7 miles. And I actually have history on the concept plan that everybody's getting confused on. So why you're remembering the concept plan review is because this application went for a concept plan review in 2024, and that's what you're remembering, not that they came in for a concept plan review for the overall development, because that was before we had concept plan reviews. So that's why you remember meeting with QuickTrip and sitting in that room, because I was thinking back to my head, when have we ever sat in that room with QuickTrip, and Carson clarified it for me, so.

Thank you, okay, further questions, Councilor Ireland? That's it. Thank you. Okay. I'm going to go through my mess up notes here. So first I want to say a really big thank you to our staff and to the applicant, both of you, because at this point you've answered the majority of my questions. So well done. And I commend you, Mr. Foster, on your presentation. That was very thorough. you know, all the technicalities are, they only exist to give us a guideline as to what it is we want there. So we got a little bit of that staff, thank you. But staff, what is the vision for the area? And do we have any leads for that vision?

So as designated by the current comprehensive plan, the area is part or adjacent to the Westmore focus area. And that area had identified this as kind of a major employment area and wanted to preserve some of the outstanding vacant parcels for retail uses to support those existing employment areas.

Thank you. And has there been a recent economic market analysis for that?

Not to my knowledge.

Thank you, Mayor. So no, we have not done a market analysis on that specifically. We do have our retail study that we do and retail strategy, but we do not make a habit of going around and doing market analysis for every vacant property throughout the city to investigate potentials. Typically, all of our economic development efforts are focused on two primary things, either small businesses or primary employers. I don't believe that we'd consider Quick Trip a primary employer. They sound like a wonderful company to work for, but I don't think they would qualify. that so they're not specifically a business where we reach out and target and again to reiterate i think our vision really is a multi-tenant retail building here at the corner that would kind of complement and act as a nice gateway to the city um but overall really the question i think is pretty just to break it down in a very simplistic manner is do does the city want to allow a gas station at this corner? They have all the correct applications filed to make that happen. It's just the question I think for city council to consider is that what we wanna do with this land?

Right, thank you. And I hear your concerns regarding that. And I agree, I don't wanna limit our future potential for the area. And I also wanna better understand what that potential looks like and what the timeline for that potential might look like. I guess my next question is if this is built, Does it, and it sounds like I'd like to hear a little bit more about the potential, the rest of the retail that's being planned for that area, because what I heard briefly was that this is a phase one of potential. I don't know if that's true. No, so I'm hearing, I'm seeing shaking heads. So, okay, if this is not a phase one of a multi-retail area, what is the full vision after the quick trip is built?

So Mayor, the full vision was the nine and a half acres. That's what Quick Trip purchased. And as a result of that purchase, we helped build out the vision. The very thing that Jacob just spoke about, we helped the city meet that goal and that vision. And what the city wanted was they wanted to ensure that that employment flex was built. and so that moved forward first and we we sat on our hands and we did not build our site before that got built now it looks like that's like absolutely the wrong decision and we were doing that in conjunction to help the city build out its vision for that corner and so we're just a component of the overall vision Thank you. I'm sorry.

No, and I have some follow-up questions along those same lines. So I'm a little confused as far as the original purchase. It was a large number of acres, and then to your point, those were sold off. Have they all been sold off at this time?

They have, and it's been fully built in completion of the employment flex that the city was hoping to achieve. Okay.

Okay, thank you. I know the area you're talking about, and I think I had the opposite corner in my head, so I apologize, and so I'm realigning. Now I understand it's on the other side where things are built out. Okay. That kind of annexes out a lot of my next questions. All right, one moment here. That's okay. And my last question is just one that you've already brought up, but I'd like to really make sure that I fully understand it. So, and most simply said, it's just why wasn't the gas station proposed back then to staff's point? You're saying that the reason is because that was not owned by Quick Trip at the time?

Quick Trip owned the entirety of the nine acres. And their contract purchaser was the employment flex space that is now just finishing up and they're now leasing it out. So that's the corner that just has this one remaining acre that is undeveloped. And Quick Trip purchased all of the nine acres. As I mentioned, it's often the case that we are unable to just purchase just what we want, so we sometimes have to buy more than we need. And that's when we sat with the city and worked through exactly what Jacob was speaking about, is that there was the vision of what the city wanted to see on that corner. And the limitations on our use at that time were residential, public space, parks. That was an allowed use by right to the extent that that's anything anymore. And when the comprehensive plan was modified in 2023, the regulation around commercial versus service commercial removed our ability to build. And I think you understand that problem.

Right. Understood. And then that leads me to my last question, which was actually my first that I wrote, which is what took so long? And I think you just answered it just now. You ended up deciding to build this last within, but what did take so long to bring this gas station forward?

because the city wanted to see their vision completed with the employment facility that just is finishing now. So as they were finishing up through going through their ODP, we were into the city in 2024 with a pre-app. So this is, I mean, we're already two years later than we wanted to be in this process and four years after we purchased the property. And those first two years were to give a headstart to the project that the city wanted to see completed. We have followed the rules. We have gone through the process. And I'm afraid that we're now in this space where having done so, we have lost seemingly our right to build what everybody knew we had purchased the property to build in the first place.

Thank you for answering those. I appreciate you. You're welcome. Mayor Pro Tem, and then we will head to public comment.

Yeah, I think just at this point, I'm looking at the original PDP for this and in planning area two, which is this site, this is before the ODP. We have primary uses or retail stores, eating establishments, banks, supermarkets, professional offices, secondary uses, auto oriented uses, standalone uses with vehicle drive-throughs, et cetera. And then in underline, it says size and distribution of uses will be regulated through the comprehensive plan. So I feel like there's some clarity on how this was gonna get regulated and that really the, I know we were arguing back and forth over, what was allowed, what wasn't allowed, et cetera. I'm just looking at kind of the written approved history here. And so I'm just, I think, I mean really what we're being asked is just, do we think service commercial can go here or not? And we've been arguing a lot about like the past history, but I feel like that's not, you know, we don't have to feel obligated to what happened. And we should just cleanly just look at does service commercial, you know, appropriately belong here, even though there's a rich, there's a rich history here of what's happened on the site. Anyway, I just wanna, I'm hoping that it's clear for us what our question is. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem.

Okay, seeing no further thoughts from council, I invite our public comment to begin.

We have one speaker, Mark McCaller.

I would like to thank you for your patience this evening.

I met you a while back. How are you? I am just an average Joe Blow. This is overwhelming, all of this information. I work paycheck to paycheck, but this service station that you guys call it is a convenience store. This is so needed. The residential homes behind that industrial park over there, I think it's called, I don't know, it's across the street from this, There is nothing in that area. That's 711 that you talked about. That's across the street. Try to get over there. If you go from 120th, let's say, like when I drive by this site every day, I go to 72nd or that Red Rocks Churches and I take a right to my work. There's 10 places on the east side that you can go in and get gas and food. Now, let's go north. There's three. There's a Shell Station by the Walgreens and Wells Fargo Bank in Nevada. You know what I'm talking about? Hopefully, all right. There'd be this one. And then the next one, if you know where at home is, across 36 in Broomfield, you go over 36 at Broomfield. There's a shell station there. Try to get fruit, milk, eggs, bread at a shell station. You can't do it. I heard the planning and zoning people talk about how the workers want to have a place to eat. That site isn't big enough for a restaurant. Old Chicago up in Broomfield had to close because of their parking problem on 120th. Now there's like a Cherry Cricket. Try to get a parking spot there. They have to park in the King Soopers. The sites that Mayor Pro Tem Sarah, you mentioned at the beginning, none of those places are gonna fit on a one acre site. This is such a needed, needed, needed business in that area. I heard you talk about that they didn't have, they didn't include this in their application or something like that. And my simple brain says to me, well, that means if they did that this would have been approved? I hope you look at the basics of life and just breathe a little bit and say, wow, this is a perfect site for a beautiful convenience store. I don't, I have nothing to do with these people, but I can tell you what, if you've been on a quick trip, it's nothing like a gas station. It's a little grocery store. People go in there and eat. The food is phenomenal. It's an in and out. People drive by themselves. You mentioned your husband went to work at Ball. Guess what? People drive by themselves to go meet for lunch. That site's not gonna fit cars. You're gonna have a disaster on your hand if you try to make that in anything else. But just quickly, I don't wanna, okay, whoops. I told you about the difference on going north and going south. We need a convenience store. This isn't a gas station. This is a convenience store with good food. I know the neighborhood would love it. Please vote yes. Three to two, Planning and Zoning voted three to two even after they're not supporting it. It should have been a five to zero vote. You had one person, I mean, that's really strong that they're not supporting it. I'm like, why is the vote three to two? That shocks me in itself, how close that was.

I'm giving you a little extra grace because you're the only one here. Finish your thought.

Okay. So you get one shot at this and this, have you seen these quick trips, how beautiful they are? Have you gone into their bathrooms? You know how some places are disgusting? Quick trip is so clean. They're outside is so clean. Look what they did for Westminster next in front of that arc. Wow, is that gorgeous. That building is beautiful compared to, I mean, I personally drive on my way to go to a quick trip because the food is phenomenal. It's fresh. The staff is so friendly. If you've ever been in there, have you been in there before? Have you? Yeah. It's really needed in that neighborhood and I hope you vote yes. I hope that site's not empty for 10 years. This will be used. Thanks for your time.

Thank you so much. And thank you again for your patience and waiting that long to speak. You deserve to be heard. Okay, with that, I think it is time for us to go ahead and take a vote. We are going, thank you for the reminder, it is now 10.14 p.m. We are going to close the public meeting and city clerk, roll call, please. Oh, we need, sorry, hold on, I'm finding my agenda, let me read. Thank you. May I have a motion? Mayor Pro Tem.

Just make sure I have the right, okay. It's 11B, right? All right. I move to, oh, it's deny. I move to deny. Do we, is that the choice we have? It's not.

That is the choice the staff provided. And so you may either make that motion or you can amend your own motion if you feel differently.

Okay, I was going to make a motion of move to approve. Councilor's bill number 22 on first reading for the comprehensive plan amendment for Mandalay Gardens track 10, lot two, to change the current land use designation from commercial to service commercial. Period. I don't think the rest of it.

You're right. Thank you so much, Mayor Patem. Do we have a second? Oh, city attorney.

I'll second it. Oh, this is Councillor Ireland. I'll second it.

Thank you, Councillor. To do a different one.

Dave Frankel, city attorney. So the question for council, absolutely an option to make your own motion. Question, I suppose, is page nine of the staff report contemplates the city council, if it wants to approve either the comp plan amendment or the PDP amendment, conditions are... So that's the question I would ask. Is there an interest in conditions that are identified on page nine of the staff memo?

Okay, let me open that, sorry.

You can also just say continue on the conditions.

Is it all, are they clear? I don't remember the conditions.

I was gonna say, I do not remember the conditions at this point. Could staff resummarize before we finish this motion?

Let me look at this, let me see if I can pull it up fast enough. I believe it had to do with the sign.

The conditional alternative is described in detail on page nine of the agenda memo. As described in the alternative section of this memo, city council could approve either or both the comprehensive plan amendment and PDP amendment. Subject to additional conditions, the additional conditions are as follows. Fuel station with convenience store may be added to allowed uses on the PDP subject to the requirement that any development that includes such use as part of a multi-tenant commercial building with no more than 50% of the floor area allocated towards a single use. Two, the primary commercial building shall be located on the hard corner of Wadsworth Parkway and West 108th Avenue to protect viewshed and gateway considerations as noted in the comprehensive plan. The maximum setback or build to line for the primary building shall be no more than 60 feet from Wadsworth Parkway and West 108th Avenue. The primary building shall be located between the pump canopy and the street rights away to screen the fuel station from view and shall be reviewed for compliance with the ODP amendments. And finally, prior to staff approval of the ODP, the applicant shall be required to submit a recorded offsite signage plan for freight traffic associated to be approved with Jefferson County.

Thank you so much. And with that, I will let you decide with the motion if you would like to and make sure that those conditions are included.

I'd probably, I know there's an ideal to have the multi-tenant building, but I'm not sure it's just financially feasible with this project. So I would move to include the condition for the location of the primary commercial building as well as the freight traffic, the signage plan for freight traffic, those two conditions.

Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. And with that.

Yes, I'm.

Yes, and with that, Councilor Ireland, are you amenable to updating your second on that?

Does that include the view corridor that they're talking about for the housing?

Yes, to protect viewshed and gateway considerations as noted in the comp plan.

Yes, okay. Okay, I will second it.

Thank you, Councilor. Thank you, Mayor Pro Tem. Okay, further discussion?

I do have further discussion. Should I go, Mayor Pro Tem? I am making this motion for approval because in reality, I feel like things have changed since the original vision for this site. Yes, I was part of trying to draft an original vision for this site many years ago to have more commercial to meet the needs of the employment area. But I feel like with the development of the flex, office building that, um, that really took away much of the footprint that could serve to meet the vision, the full vision for retail on the site. Um, and so you think about other locations like the, was it no Vera or something that, you know, just has a more robust, it's a larger retail site. It can have that mix of inline as well as pad sites. Um, and so, um, To me, it's not overly ideal. However, I feel like, again, the opportunity for a more robust commercial center there is not there now. And so now I'm just trying to rectify my mind, okay, what is a reasonable use for the site? And the proposed service commercial center It provides a need in the area and it's generally compatible with flex office space. So that's why, you know, cause I'm looking at specifically the criteria in B-4 as kind of helping me to think about how things are different. And so that's where I'm at.

Thank you, Councilor Barajas.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you again to the applicant and to staff for the presentations. I think I went through kind of all the standards and really had a lot of those questions answered thanks to both the applicants and staff. And at the end, I just kind of am sitting with the question that Mayor Pro Tem kind of asked us, like all of the history and dynamics aside, it's really just the comp plan asked for X, is or is asking for x um so we as a council are trying to figure out is that vision still possible and if it's still or has the vision now changed um and so i just wanted to kind of echo that yes i heard that and that's kind of the yeah and that kind of goes to the the standard number one you know um a-1 or however we're supposed to outline it but the plan you know the pud zoning and the proposed land uses and the associated preliminary development planner and conformance with the city's comprehensive plan and all city codes, ordinances, policies. And so that's kind of where I'm sitting as I listen to kind of these final thoughts.

Thank you. And I have similar thoughts to share, which is just thank you, Quick Trip, for investing in our city. You continue to do so and I appreciate that. And I remember the vote just recently about the one that was just brought up about right in front of our thrift store and it really did elevate that area. And this land was purchased quite some time ago by Quick Trip. And it seems that there was a long-term vision. And in some regards, Quick Trip has helped fulfill the city's vision of that area. And so with this, I feel like we are completing that partnership. right? And so for that, I'm grateful. I've also seen that sign go up. I pass it every day from where I live, seeing that the headquarters is there. So that's exciting. I welcome you to the neighborhood and I'd be happy to head over there for whenever that grand opening is happening. But in regards to this case in front of us, we do have a stringent comp plan of which we're quite proud of. And so thank you for all the time and due diligence and working with us and our staff over the you know, grand span of many years because our staff do an excellent job of keeping that standard high. And you're right too that, you know, you don't see those signs all over. We take a great pride in our city. There are not neon signs everywhere left and right. We have high standards of our aesthetics and we wanna make sure that we plan wisely. And so we are asking that you make sure that this goes off on one aways, I think that's helpful. But I think that there are ways that we can work together on this one. And I also, to our gentleman's comments earlier, I do speak to the need of something. There is a bit of a food desert in that area, and because Quick Trip does have an elevated standard, you do provide for that. So thank you for having that grocery, and thank you for providing for the need for food in creative ways that are often unmet. And then I also, I'm gonna be a yes on both of the amendments here because I do believe that it somewhat fits the needs of the area and it's not harmonious with what's there. So thank you so much, Councilor Johnson.

Thank you Mayor and yeah this is this is tough and I appreciate the history not having been on council when the comprehensive plan was adopted and having to try to grapple with some of these changes and their impacts and Mark I really appreciate you being here tonight I think that's really valuable insight For me, while it is a close call, I think there are still some unanswered questions. Being the lawyer that I am related to Westminster Municipal Code 11-521 , which is the strict criteria, which regardless of the history is how we're supposed to judge comprehensive land use plan amendment. When we look at these criteria, any one of these, they're all supposed to be met. So if any one of these isn't met by the land use application, land use plan amendment, it could be grounds for denying that amendment. So, I'm still concerned about whether 11, 5, 21, B5, B8, and B10, particularly as it relates to the vision for the city that was planned out in that comprehensive plan amendment, but specifically for some of what was talked about by staff as it relates to the lost alternative for future uses in the city. And one of the things that stood out in the staff's memo is the city's financial department determining kind of future projected revenue loss for the city if this land use amendment were to go into effect. So while it's a pretty close call for me, I will be a no tonight.

Thank you. And then I think I checked in, but I'll check in one more time. Folks online, did you want to offer any further discussion before the vote?

Yes. It's a really unfortunate situation. You know, I feel bad for Quick Trip and the process difficulties that the representative who spoke so eloquently laid out. It's an unfortunate situation. But to go back to Mayor Pro Tem's question, right? That's really what's been on my mind since the first minute of this topic tonight is it doesn't actually matter what the history is. Not to me. What matters is one question and that question is does city council want to have a gas station at that location? I do not. I believe a gas station adversely impacts the immediate area and simply because the original vision may have changed, that doesn't mean we should rush to put in a gas station. So I think this situation requires us to be just a little more patient and we just wait for the right thing to come by, and the right use might show up, but we shouldn't rush into this. So I agree with staff's recommendation to deny this application.

Thank you, Councillor. Councillor Haag or Ireland?

Well, considering we did the whole flex space and everything else for this to happen, That's what I'm basing it on, and there's nothing around for people to get gassed. Luckily for me, the gentleman came and spoke and was in support, and he had good reasoning. So I'm going to go with what he said, and I think that's the right thing to do as long as we can work with the view corridor and everything and try to make it as best we can.

Thank you, Councilor. Councilor Haught?

Yeah, for me, I don't want to repeat a lot of what's been said, but we have legal criteria that we need to base this on. It doesn't matter if we like it. It doesn't matter if we don't like it. What matters is does it fit our criteria legally? And it does not. So I cannot vote for it because legally I should not vote for it.

Thank you. Thank you, Councillor. Okay, City Clerk, roll call, please.

Councillor Azadi.

Sorry, are we doing the affirmative or the...

The motion on the table is to approve Councilor's Bill 22 with the conditions of the location of the building and the condition of the signage of the freight traffic, is that correct? Yes.

Okay. No.

Councilor Hop? No. Councilor Ireland? Yes. Councilor Johnson?

No.

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela? Yes. Councilor Barajas?

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia? Yes. The motion passes on a 4-3 vote.

Thank you so much. With that, it is 10.30 on the dot.

There's a second motion that now becomes relevant and that is whether or not to approve the amendment to the PDP.

Thank you so much. Before we move to extend tonight's evening's meeting, let's go on to the second motion for this item. Well, that's what I was trying to do, but I was just correct. City Attorney, which one would you like to do first? Extend or...

Oh, forgive me, yes. Of course, council's protocols and rules contemplate a motion to extend the meeting after four hours. So yes, if you'd like to address that.

Thanks so much. Real quick, we're gonna vote on whether to extend this evening's meeting and we'll just go around the room real quick. City Clerk.

Let's see, Councillor Hotton. Yes. Councillor Ireland. Yes. Councillor Johnson.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. Councillor Barajas. Yes. Mayor Carmelia. Yes. And Councillor Azadi. Yep. Motion passes on a 7-0 vote.

Thank you so much. With that, we get another half an hour. Hopefully that gets us through the next hearing. May I have a motion on the second item?

I move to approve the preliminary development plan amendment for Mandalay Gardens track 10 lot 2. I second.

Sorry I didn't let you finish.

That's okay I was just asking our city attorney if there are any additional if there's

conditions that I need to add to that or not well first I would suggest you know if the motion is to approve you could base that recommendation on a finding that the PDP if you feel it complies with the criteria in the code that could be part of your motion whether there are any proposed conditions on the PDP amendment I don't know that there are. So that's the question I suppose. Would you like to include a reference in the motion to the PDP amendment?

This recommendation complies with the code. Based on finding that the preliminary development plan amendment complies with the criteria in section 11.5-14 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Thank you so much, Mayor Pro Tem.

Councilor Ireland? Second. Thank you. Any further discussion? Mayor Pro Tem. No, no. Councillor Johnson.

Just briefly, I will, given that this, the land use plan was approved, I do believe this PDP meets the SALPA, yes.

Thank you. Roll call, please. Councillor Ireland. Yes. Councillor Johnson. Yes. Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. Councillor Barajas.

Yes.

Mayor Carmelia? Yes. Councillor Azadi?

No.

And Councillor Hott? Yes. The motion passes on a 6-1 vote. Thank you.

All right, there's been a request for a short break, so we're going to take a short break and try to be back within three minutes here. Thank you all for your time this evening. Appreciate you. Thank you.

All right.

you

Okay, we're good.

Thank you all. The time is now 1039 p.m. And I will open our third public meeting. Does staff have a presentation?

No.

They're saying no from the background.

Okay, I see shaking heads.

Yeah, no presentation tonight.

Perfect. I just wanted to wait for that to get into the record. Thank you so much. Well, in that case, do we have a motion? Councillor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor.

I move to... Mayor, you need to actually open the public hearing and ask for public testimony. I'm sorry.

Okay. Is there anyone present for public testimony?

I see the time.

It is 1039, we just opened this hearing. I think that we should wait a moment perhaps for one moment until we can close it a minute later.

And there is no public testimony, perfect.

It is now 1040. And so we have a new time and I will close the hearing. And now we can move on to the motion and the vote. Thank you so much, staff, council and public. Councilor Johnson.

Thank you, Mayor. I move to approve the allocation of the Community Development Block Grant funds as set forth in this agenda memo for the 2026 program year and authorize staff to submit the 2026 Community Development Block Grant annual action plan to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Thank you. Councilor Barajas.

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Anyone online? Okay, with that, roll call, please. Councillor Johnson.

Yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. Councillor Barajas. Yes. Mayor Carmelia. Yes. Councillor Azadi.

Yes.

Councillor Haught. Yes. And Councillor Ireland. Yes. The motion passes on a 7-0 vote.

Thank you so much. And do I have a second motion? Councilor Barajas.

I move to pass Councilor Bill number 23 on first reading for a supplemental appropriation of funds to the 2026, wait, is that correct? Yeah, 2026 budget of the Community Development Block Grant Fund.

Thank you. Councilor Johnson.

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Roll call, please.

Mayor Pro Tem Nurmela. Yes. Councilor Barajas. Yes. Mayor Carmelia? Yes. Councillor Azadi? Yes. Councillor Haught? Yes. Councillor Ireland? Yes. And Councillor Johnson?

Yes.

The motion passes on a 7-0 vote.

Thank you so much. We will now move on to new business. First reading of Councillor Bill number 24. Do I have a motion? Councillor Azadi?

I move to pass council's bill number 24 on first reading to amend title six of the Westminster municipal code, specifically 6-7-12 regarding restrictions on sale and possession of animals.

Thank you. Do I have a second? Councilor Brahas.

Second.

Thank you. Any further discussion? Mayor Pro Tem.

Yes. I was wondering if we could have staff, um, come forward and answer a couple of questions I have regarding one, did we have any focused community outreach on this proposed change to our regulations?

Welcome.

Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem, counselors, for those in the audience and those online, Norm Haber, police chief, Mayor Pro Tem, to answer your question, the police department did not have any community outreach as to this ordinance change and I don't believe anybody from the city attorney's office did either.

How involved was our community services department in development of the proposal?

Let me phone a friend, sorry.

Good evening, Lindsay Kimball, community services director. We were involved in reviewing how it might influence surrounding land uses. There was consultation with the planning manager, John McConnell. I'm sorry, he's already left for the night or I would have him speaking, but he did review this and work very closely with chief and with the city attorney's office.

So I'm looking at the proposal, it's significantly more than our neighbors. Are there any examples that we can look to in terms of other communities that have increased their number of allowed chickens?

Mayor Pro Tem, what I'm aware of in the surrounding area, I don't know that we surveyed all of the Denver Metro area, but for the immediate area, we would be the anomaly.

Do we have any understanding of what the carrying capacity of a site or of a certain size parcel is? Do we have any basis for the proposed change?

Mayor Pro Temo, I'm not aware of any, I have some ideas of what is through GIS of lot sizes around the city, but as to a lot size and what that would enable, use the right term here, somebody, I wanna say growing chickens, that's not the right word. Raising chickens, sorry. Raising chickens, I don't have, I don't know if there's a correlation that we have to share tonight.

Okay. I'm... This may be fine, it may not. I mean, I'm trying, so in terms of the impact to our animal management team, would we need to increase our service call or would service calls increase? Would we, is there any impact to FTE or, I'm just trying to get a feel for,

So Mayor Partem, with this ordinance changed at this time, there's no request for additional FTEs. That is a concern of mine. With the staff and the potential impact on staff, they do respond already to two calls relating to chickens, bees, and other animals. And the concern, one of the concerns just is the, as you raise the number of chickens, like any animal limit, are they responsible pet owners? Are they taking care of the animals that they have along with the animals the other issues that they normally see with chickens. So it's an assumption. Again, we don't have another agency to look at around us. The assumption is that with some of these increased numbers that we would see some increased complaints. To give you an exact number on that, obviously we would be guessing at this point in time just because we don't have another city around us to look and to give hard and fast numbers to.

and we didn't look outside of our immediate Front Range area or different state?

We didn't look at different states, ma'am, no.

Okay. And how many sites or parcels did we figure this could immediately impact in terms of increasing beyond six? Because it looks like a quarter acre or more, we could start to exceed six chickens, right? So...

So thanks to our friends in GIS, a quarter to a half acre would be 3,130 single family units. A half acre to three quarters of an acre would be 198 units. Three quarters of an acre to one acre would be 71. One to two acres would be 82. and more than two acres would be 17.

And then how many chicken licenses do we currently have? Just so I can get an understanding of sort of the per unit. I don't know how many single family units we have in the city. I know we have over, we have like 45,000 residential units, but does anybody know how many chicken licenses, permits? I don't know, is there a permit license?

Mayor Pro Tem might do, it's gonna take me here in a second, sorry. So far today, we have 274 chicken permits.

do we anticipate there being more or just more permits or we just anticipate just more chickens?

I think the assumption is that we anticipate more, more permits and more chickens. I think some of the individuals that currently have permits are looking to add chickens to them, non-farm.

Okay. But

that's more chickens are you do you anticipate people suddenly going oh i can i think there i think there is an allure by some um that this may provide other opportunities for them so i think there is that that possibility for others to uh to come forward and get a permit for additional chickens on there uh depending on their lot size

Okay, and then if we do approve this and somebody's, or we decide, I don't know, a year or two from now, the city's overrun with chickens, they're everywhere. It's as cute as Hawaii, maybe. I don't know if you've found out there, but chickens are, they walk the streets. But if people have permits, let's say they have a permit for 12 or 18 chickens and we decide, okay, there's too many, we have to reduce this. What happens there?

Mayor Pro Tem, I think that it would be a legitimate exercise of the city's police power to revisit this issue in the future if there were problems.

And so a permit holder, let's say they got 18 chickens and suddenly we change it back to less, six or whatever, would they have to, what would they have to do? With nothing or would they... I don't remember if chicken permits are like once a year, you have to re-up your chicken permit.

As far as I remember, it's a one-time deal for chickens and bees. It's not an annual permitting piece.

So you get your 18 and so if we change it, they could still keep their 18 chickens?

if council wanted that result, but if there were circumstances that required reducing the number of chickens and council made findings that that was necessary, I think that could be the result too.

Okay. Interesting, okay. I asked all these questions because I felt like this was a little hurried of a process. In fact, it wasn't really a process which would normally include conversation with stakeholders, community outreach as any kind of code update ideally would include. So I'm struggling with just kind of you know, I'm struggling with this lack of process to feel good about this I am seeing that there's Not that many in the scheme of things in terms of impacted parcels That could increase their chicken count and there's not that many folks that are raising chickens this is kind of comical to talk about but I think So after the questions, I think I'm generally okay with it. I just really dislike this process. I'll share that with my fellow counselors. I'd really like us to be thoughtful about when we go through ordinances like this to really include the community. Thanks. Thank you. Councilor Brahus.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. And thanks for the questions, Mayor Pro Tem. Some of the things that I've been thinking of on this, you know, I mean, if there's kind of like too many numbers, you know, like the criteria of acreage is too wide in the bottom buckets, we can kind of move if that kind of makes sense. the jump feel better, at least in my understanding. And in these numbers of properties and the units that Chief kind of outlined, just real quick, do you know if those are all non-HOA units or are those just any unit in the city that hits that size criteria?

Well, one, I have to give a shout out to our planning manager, John McConnell, for directing me in the right avenue on some of these questions. And then Amanda Martinez in our GIS unit. She was also able to provide, let me get to the right page here. So compared to the numbers that I just gave you, for the quarter to a half acre, there are 1,947 that fall within an HOA boundary. From the half to three quarters of an acre, there's 138. Wow, sorry. From three quarters to one acre, there's 28. From one to two acres, there's 36. and for more than two acres, there's zero. Now on top of the HOA boundaries, our GIS folks laid over the current existing livestock permit data and approximately half of those are within HOA boundaries.

Thank you, Chief. That's really helpful coloring for that because, you know, there's kind of even, I mean, I think we see that there's even more filters. And I think to the spirit of this request, or at least the way that I'm approaching it, is like those who have kind of the capacity and the space. you know, thinking like the one acre, the two acre, the kind of larger lots, you know, if there is space for them to have a few, you know, a little more, that's kind of like the attention of this. But, you know, if there's, if there was room to increase, you know, from the bottom up, that's helpful. I personally don't anticipate more permits necessarily, you know, more chickens, obviously, but not necessarily more permits. It's animal husbandry is, very arduous task and I won't go on too much longer since we'll need to do a time check in just five minutes. But, you know, if it would be helpful, we can kind of revisit the buckets or I'd be open to revisiting the buckets. But just knowing that a couple of things that kind of give me some peace of mind, you know, it's my understanding that the city reserves the right to revoke a permit in spite of, so like if there is poor caretaking of these animals, or if there's some sort of violations or persistent nuisance, regardless of what the allowance is, if there's only four chickens on the property, even if they're allowed 20, we can pull back that permit. And that's something that gives me great grace. This isn't kind of a legal obligation that the city's under. So that's kind of where I'm sitting. But yeah, if we wanna have a conversation around the numbers, I'm open to that.

Thank you. I'm gonna go to folks online. Councilor Rosati, any thoughts or questions?

Can we do the time check? Because I have more than three minutes to say.

All right, let's do a quick motion then. City Clerk, roll call please to allow us to go on another half hour.

Councilor Barajas? Yes. Mayor Carmelian? Yes. Councilor Azadi?

Yes.