Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Heat. [Music] [Music] [Music] Heat [Music] up [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

[Music] [Music] [Music] Hello everyone and welcome to the January 13, 2026 meeting of the city of Westminster Planning Commission. I would like to acknowledge quickly that we have a new commissioner and unfortunately all I know is her first name. So why don't you go ahead and introduce yourself? My name is Nicole Morris.

Turn on. There you go. And now say it again. My name is Nicole Morris. Thank you. And she will be voting tonight. Um I'd also like to acknowledge that um we had a retirement from the planning commission. Commissioner Rick Mayo retired after many years of service to this commission and we honor his service and appreciate his time. Okay. At this time, I'd like to say anyone who would like to speak at tonight's hearing, please sign up in the back of the room with your name and address. And at this time, can we get the role, please? Commissioner Young, excused. Vice Chair Carpenter, present.

Chair Boscher, here. Commissioner Calling excused. Commissioner Dunn here. Commissioner Tomichek here. Commissioner Conir here. Commissioner Peg unexcused. Commissioner Calling excused. All right. We have a uh and pardon uh Commissioner Morris present.

All right. Thank you. So, we have a quorum and the alternate will be voting tonight. At this time, we need a motion to approve the meeting minutes for January 9th. Excuse me, for December 9th. Is that the correct date, Ronnie? December 9th. Yes. Okay. So, um I believe we can just do a voice vote. All in favors, please. Oh, first we need a motion. Excuse me. I'll make that motion. Thank you, Mr. Kamichek. And a second.

Second. Commissioner Dunn. Thank you. So, voice vote. All in favor, please say I. I.

All oppose, please say nay. Motion passes unanimously. So, tonight's public hearing, we will be looking at two items. Item 3A, a public hearing in action on requested special use permit for the expansion of the Ark Thrift Store located at 8 8657 Sheridan Boulevard. And item 3B, public hearing and action on a requested height variance for a flag pole at the Orchard Town Center located at 14697 Delaware Street, 850. The public hearing is hereby opened and we have Mr. Harlo to begin the presentation.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm just going to go ahead get the presentation up. Microphone. Yeah, your mic. See if we can get that turned on. Is it not on? It's still not on. There's not a button. The light is on at the base, but we're not hearing anything. Try again. Hello. There you go. Yep.

Thank you. It's louder than I was expecting. Okay. Oh, yeah. We're good. All right. I'll get started here. Okay. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Trevor Harlo and I'm a senior planner with the city's planning division. Presentation. Yep. We've got the we've got item 3B showing instead of 3A. What a mess to start.

Here we go. Just gonna start over and pretend we didn't do that first part. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Trevor Harllo and I'm a senior planner at 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 attachments, tonight's PowerPoint presentation, the mailed notices, and the posted notices are hereby entered into the public record. The notices of the public hearing were ma mailed to over 900 property owners, tenants, and HOAs within 1,000 ft of the property under consideration tonight. Three public notification signs were posted on subject property, and the city has also posted the hearing date and time on its website. To start, here is a map of the tenant space where the existing Ark Rift store is located. This site is in the the labels Plaza subdivision legally platted as lot one second replat label's Plaza subdivision. The site is generally located within the retail shopping center on the southwest corner of West 88th Avenue and Sheridan Boulevard as shown there. The image on the left is the vicinity map from the submitted plan set. As you'll see the you'll be able to as you see there the site under consideration as well as the rest of the shopping center. Uh it is within this site had an approved official development plan or ODP from 1978. The review and approval of that plan considered site planning for commercial and retail uses. This accounted for uses such as the current thrift store that is seeking an expansion tonight. The approved ODP considered site planning elements included but not limited to parking,

vehicular and pedestrian circulation, landscaping, loading, delivery, trash collection, lighting, emergency access, and of course, building design. The image on the right is also from the submitted plan set and this shows the current occupied space and the proposed expansion space. The proposed expansion space is on the north end of the existing Ark thrift store which sits on the south end of that shopping center. So it's on expanding to the north. The this expansion space will be used for additional room uh to service employees that are on site and will not include any additional retail floor space. It will all be for employees back of the house operation. This proposed expansion is interior to the existing retail center. So, it's not visible to the public. Uh the view from the exterior of the building will not uh be shown. No exterior renovations will be occurring. All right. Under the city of Westminster's code, a thrift store over 5,000 square feet may be permitted with a use by special permit, also known as an SU. So, in this case, also requiring an SUP to expand the footprint of an existing uh thrift store that's already greater than 5,000 ft. You may view the definition for thrift store here, as shown on the slide. By granting approval of the subject SUP before you, the planning commission grants the allowance for this land use only to the business owner of Ark Thrift Store, which is Rocky Mountain Properties at this specific location. This allowance once granted does not run with the land as you may say. Uh it may not be transferred to others and will expire if abandoned for a year or more. And as I mentioned in this case, we are granting the business owner an expansion of their currently existing retail site.

Just to make sure we're all on the same page there. All right. When staff evaluates an SUP uh application, nine criteria are considered. The first four criteria are shown on this slide. Staff found that the expansion of the use proposed with this application will have minimal impact on the operations in the surrounding location. The visual concerns associated with the proposed use are mitigated by the operation being centrally located in the building and again renovations that will not be visible to public view. Outdoor activity would be limited to the the typical vehicle and pedestrian traffic already associated with this site. Uh and that being this site has a dedicated donation drop off location it being a thrift store. But this expansion is not expected to noticeably impact the intensity or frequency of this activity. The final five criteria are displayed here. Staff found that the proposed expansion of the use is consistent with the surrounded uses in the area. Deliveries and waste disposal are away from hightra public areas and accounted for with this site's operations. And again, donation drop offs will continue to occur occur occur at the front entrance, but again, this expansion will not noticeably impact the intensity or frequency of these drop offs. Lastly, parking, traffic, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation have been reviewed and approved previously with the amended official development plan for this property. Uh in addition to the nine approval criteria, there are five standards that must be considered when reviewing an SUP application. The first two of which are are shown here. Staff finds that the proposed expansion of this use for the ARK thrift store is reasonably compatible with the surrounding

neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed use is not in conflict with the policies of the comprehensive plan or its comprehensive plan land use designation. All right, the final three standards are shown on this slide. Thrift stores greater than 5,000 square ft in size are limited to one operation with a within a 1,000 ft radius. Staff has found that there are no other licensed thrift stores within the that radius within the city of Westminster. In addition, the applicant has confirmed the closest thrift store of this size uh inside of Westminster's jurisdiction is beyond the 10,00 radius of this site, that being the Oldtown Exchange at 5670 West 88th Avenue, and that's roughly uh 2 miles away. The other distance limitation for this uh the other distance limitations for the standard which are subsections A, B, C and E are for other uses and not applicable to this application. The following standards uh four and five are also not applicable to this application them uh dealing with uses that this is not. All right. Uh staff recommendation. Um, so that being said, staff recommends the holding of tonight's public hearing and granting approval of this SUP by the planning commission as detailed in the agenda memo. Lastly, approval of this proposed SUP helps to promote and support a resilient economy that attracts and retains a diversity of businesses, workers, and industries, expands living wage jobs, and diversifies the city's tax base. This concludes staff's presentation. Uh thank you all for your attention. The applicant's representative is here with us tonight. Uh but they do not have a presentation, but they're happy to answer any questions you may have. And of course, I'm always happy to answer

any questions you may have.

Thank you. Okay. Any questions or discussion from commissioners? Commissioner Tomichek. Um, so I'm trying to understand the uh underlying reason for the limitation on 5,000 square feet, why that's a special use versus a thrift store that's less than 5,000 square ft. So, you know, whenever we're considering an alternative to a rule, sort of want to understand the rule, what what prompted the 5,000 square feet in the first place? I can't speak to what prompted them to decide 5,000 square feet. I can just say that in the code it specifically calls out 5,000. I have to imagine it has some things to do with intensity, the type of use it is, and once you get to that larger size, it tends to have a bigger impact, especially with like donation drop offs and things like that, but imagine Jacob might be able to speak to that more.

Yes, Commissioner Tomichek. So, I thank you for the question. Um, I would concur with uh senior planner Harlo. um that that's it's based mostly on the intensity and the volume of customers and traffic that you would see. Um for thrift stores in particular, I think the city has a couple of reasons for concern. One is the um the possibility of the donation areas to become unsightly or unkempt. Um I don't think that's the case here at Ark. Our our experience with them has been pretty decent. They've been a good steward of the site and um that's why we're recommending approval. Um, other than the 5,000 ft, I think it's, you know, some at some with any rule, you have to pick a number and settle somewhere. So, I'm not sure exactly why I picked five. Don't know why it wasn't four or six. Um, but nonetheless, that is what the city code has the limit at.

Any other questions? All right. In that case, I will open the public hearing on this item. Anyone who wishes to speak on this, please come forward. Did we have any emails or voicemails on this? Uh, no emails and no voicemails. Okay. Is there anyone signed up to speak? No.

No. Okay. Well, then I will close the public testimony portion of the hearing and uh entertain a motion on this application. Uh, I move that the planning commission approves a special use permit for the expansion of a thrift store greater than 5,000 square ft for the existing Ark thrift store within the label's Plaza subdivision subject to the rules and requirements of section 11-4-8 of the Westminster Municipal Code and all other applicable city codes and regulations. Okay, that was Commissioner Conir. Do we have a second?

I'll second. Commissioner Tomichek. Thank you. Any discussion? All right, I will call the question. Can we get a roll call, please? Commissioner Conir, yes. Commissioner Tomichek, yes. Commissioner Dunn, yes. Chair Boser, yes. Vice Chair Carpenter, yes. Commissioner Morris. Yes.

Okay. The motion passes unanimously. Thank you and thank you for the presentation. All right, we are moving on to item 3B. And I'm looking to see who's making the presentation tonight. Good evening, Chair. Uh, oh, it looks like it's Reb. Thank you. Yes, Re Basil, senior planner. I'm just pulling up the staff presentation here on the screen for you.

All right, good night. Look, or yes, it looks like the presentation pulled up. Uh, good evening, commissioners. My name is Reb Batesel, senior planner with the city's planning division. As a 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 40 property owners and tenants within 300 ft of the site under consideration tonight. Seven public notification signs were posted on the subject property and the city posted the hearing date and time on its website. The project sites located at the Orchard Town Center located at 14697 Delaware Street, Sweet 850. And the sign is proposed within an existing landscaped area directly north of the intersection of 144th Avenue and Delaware Street. Uh the applicant is requesting one variance in order to deviate from the height limitation for incidental signs. The request is for a 40ft tall flag pole that includes an 8 in gold anodized aluminum ball which rests on top of an 8 in truck detail for a total height of 41 ft and 4 in. Uh the Westminster Municipal Code considers a flag as an incidental sign and limits the size of the sign depending on the land use where it's located. Um the maximum allowable height of a flag pole on a property with a commercial land use uh where this site is located is 35 ft. Uh the applicant provided a site plan

exhibit with their variance request and this site plan shows uh the proposed location of the flag pole that's within the existing landscape area. And section 11113 of the Westminster Municipal Code provides six criteria that must be met um for the planning commission to approve a variance for height. staff finds that two of the six criteria have not been met. The first criteria is that the property has a special circumstance or condition that would restrict the effectiveness of the sign. Uh there are no special circumstances or conditions that would restrict the effectiveness of the sign. The site is a large already developed shopping center with conditions created by the property owner. So staff finds this criterion is not met. The second criteria is that the approval of the variance would not weaken the purpose of the sign regulations. The comprehensive plan or the zoning district staff finds that the variance would weaken the purpose of the sign regulations as it sets a precedence to allow future variances beyond quantifiable and numerical standards. Consistent application of the sign code is critical to help ensure equity between businesses who utilize signage as not only a tool to identify their business but also as a mechanism to compete with other businesses. Therefore, staff finds this criterion is not met. Uh staff finds that the other four criteria are met, that the character of the land use would not be altered, the sign would not be detrimental or pose a threat to public health, safety, or welfare. And um the sign is an allowed type of sign. So staff recommends that the planning commission hold a public hearing and deny the requested variance for the flag

pole height. Thank you for your attention to my presentation. and I'm happy to answer any questions and the applicant is here with us tonight uh to share a presentation with you as well. All right. Thank you.

Hello. Um do I

Okay, great. Uh so yes, here is our presentation requesting our flagpole height variance request. Um, a little bit of background on our request is that we had originally requested 50 feet. Um, and so at that initial hearing, um, I have inherited the project. So I'll tell you what I learned, um, is that we could potentially get a 40 foot variance, but that we needed to reduce the size of the overall flag. We had originally matched the size of the flag to be um in accordance with the guidelines for that flag pole height. However, the variance of the flag pole was significantly less than the variance of the overall square footage of the flag versus the allowed sign code. Um so our um goal here in terms of this flag pole is um a part of a Vestar um national initiative. Vestar is the property management company for Orchard Town Center and we're looking to reflect Orchard values with community engagement care and this is just more than a structure. It's really a civic gesture on our part. Um, as Rob mentioned, we have a strategic placement here at the corner of 144th Avenue and Delaware Street. We welcome um almost 8 million visitors annually, and we feel like what we have proposed complent the landscape and the community amenities nicely. Um, technical specs, these were reviewed in the earlier presentation. We're requesting a 40 foot flag pole height um with a flag that would be 12 feet wide by 8 feet tall. Structurally, we had our engineer architect put together these plans so

it'll be structurally secure. Um, and then for the visual enhancements, we wanted to be careful not to overwhelm the skyline and feel like the slender profile really maintains sight lines, but it's still visible from major approaches to the center. So, for our variance, um we felt like with the uh elevation change that you see as you're coming into different areas of the property that the variance would allow for the flag to be seen as people are approaching um while still not impacting the neighbors um and that we'll have minimum visibility available. Uh we have a couple of additional perspectives here on the following slide where you can see that it is very unobtrusive um from these longer angles and we are committed to ongoing care of the flag as well as the structure.

Okay. Before you um conclude, can you go ahead and give us your name for the record, please? Yes. Kate Hecman. All right. Thank you. Um, all right. Any questions from commissioners? Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, this one's for staff. Uh, in the correspondence we received in the packet, uh, there was a comment from one of the adjoining property owners that they weren't properly noticed. Uh, and and I know that in your presentation that we said that was noticed. So, uh, can, uh, is that is that the case or do you know what's going on?

Thank you, Vice Chair Carpenter. Um, our GIS staff pulls a list of all occupants and tenants within a 300 foot buffer of the subject site. Um, all the subdivisions and everyone that's sort of touches or within those, there's a chance they could have been one foot outside of that and didn't get noticed. So, um, we provide the applicant with all of those addresses and then they certify that they mailed to them. Yeah. So, yeah. Unlike, uh, new residential development where you have to notify the entire neighborhood. This doesn't happen for commercial.

It's for the variance specifically. Actually, the code says that we must notify all tenants um and property owners within 300 ft where sometimes you see that thousand ft buffer for other projects like new residential subdivisions. Understood. Okay, great. That was my big question. Thank you. You're welcome, Commissioner Caner. Thank you. I believe in your presentation you indicated that the intended flag size was an 8 by 12 flag. That's correct.

The um documents in our packet including the uh uh sizing uh indicate a a 6x10 size. Can you explain the discrepancy? My understanding is that at the last planning commission meeting, there was a request that we put together an additional variance for a 35 foot flag pole with a smaller total flag square footage. Okay. So, the you're I'm trying to wrap my mind around that.

That's we were it's my understanding we were asked for a contingency plan. Okay. So the the 8 by12 size flag is what you're proposing. I think the the code and the other documents suggest that a 6x10 foot flag would be the appropriate size for the 35 ft. That's my understanding. Okay. Um commissioner if I could address that. Yes. Um so the variance application that was submitted to the city was just for the flag pole. Um 60 square feet is the maximum that's allowed. Um the the slides that were submitted to us shows a 6x10 dimension. So I don't know if that's just a just discrepancy there.

Great. I just want clarification for the record. Thanks Commissioner Tom. So uh this one's for Reb. Um the notifica just to clarify the notification requirements. Um, is it from the project location and the boundary the 300 ft? Is it from the project location or is it from the edge of the property of the orchards? Thank you, Commissioner Tomichek. It's from the edge of the property. So, the buffer would go out 300 ft from the entire Orchard Town Center.

Okay. And then I this is for the applicant. Um why only a single flag pole as opposed to multiples given the changes in grade and the other issues that have been identified? That's a great question. I again I inherited the project and our request from our corporate leadership was to establish one flag. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? All right. Thank you very much. At this time, I'd like to go ahead and open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Was there any emails or voicemails on this item?

All uh emails and voicemails were transcribed and provided in the packet addendum this afternoon. Thank you. And did anyone sign up to speak? Uh no speakers. No speakers. Okay. I will ask one last time, is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? Seeing no one, I will close the public testimony portion of the hearing and entertain discussion or a motion from a commissioner.

No. Oh, excuse me, Vice Chair Carpenter. I thought you were just giving everyone else a chance.

I got to get new glasses. Well, I believe this has been met. Uh, so I'm going to move that the planning commission approve the signed variance for the Orchard Town Center. This recommendation is based on that the six criteria set forth in 11-11-13E2 of the Westminster code are met. Um, number one, I do criteria one, I do think there are special circumstance. I think the I think the topography and the visibility from 144th uh is is a special circumstance. I also think for criteria 2, it's not going to weaken the general sign code and this is about an 18.6% deviation and we have the authority to go to a 20% deviation from standard. Uh not to mention that ODPS can always negotiate uh higher higher polls. I mean, we just approved 150 ft transmission tower. I I know it's a different uh thing the other day. So, I think we know that everything can be negotiated. We're within our our realm and I think this meets the meets our a variance request.

Okay. Do we have a second? Commissioner Conir, I had a comment on a second. Okay. Uh I Let's get a second first. Yeah, we we we need to have a motion before we can have discussion. Is anyone willing to second this motion? I'll second. All right. Thank you, Commissioner Tomichek. All right, Commissioner Caner.

Yeah, I I respectfully disagree. I think that the standards are there for a reason and and I don't see a compelling reason why we should deviate from that. The the 35- foot height uh seems to satisfy the need for a flag in this location. and uh each time we whittle away at the the standards that are in the code uh just creates another opportunity for someone else to come in. So that's my perspective. All right. Anyone else?

Uh I tend to fall in the same line as Commissioner Conir. There there are other solutions available to the ownership of the the property or the tenant on the property than giving an exemption.

Okay, that was Commissioner Tomachek. Anyone else? I am have mixed feelings on this. Five feet seems trivial, but as Commissioner Caner has pointed out, we have u regulations for a reason. So, um I guess the next best thing would be to go ahead and call the question if we can get a roll call on this. We'll see how everybody feels unless there is more discussion. Doesn't look like it. So, let's get a roll call, please. Uh, Commissioner Conir.

Uh, so we are voting to approve uh the the extended flag pole. Yeah, my vote is not to approve. So, it's a no. Uh, Commissioner Tomichek, no. Commissioner Dunn, no. Uh, Chair Bosert, yes. Vice Chair Carpenter, yes. Commissioner Morris, no.

Okay, the motion fails on a what was that? 4 to2 vote. So, we need another motion at this time. Or does that um, Mr. Graham, does that qualify as definitive? Normally, it would not qualify as definitive because normally you'd be uh recommending uh approval or denial to the city council. But in this instance, the failure of a motion to approve kills the application. So, you do not need to make another motion

because this is not a recommendation. We are the final say on this. Okay. So that means the applicant does not get a variance on this. Is that correct? Yes. And actually I might I might reverse that. And the reason I'm just sorry thinking out loud is I think it would be best to find if you deny if you're going to deny the application, it would be best to go through the criteria and explain why one or more criteria have not been met. So I I'm I'm gonna reverse myself, backpedal. Okay. So we do need a motion to deny. So let's get a motion to deny. Okay. Commissioner Conir,

I move that the planning commission deny the sign variance for the Orchard Town Center. This recommendation is based on a finding that the six criteria set forth in 11-11 11-11-13e2 of the Westminster Municipal Code are not met specifically uh criteria 1 and two as explained by staff. Okay, we need a second on this. Second.

All right, Commissioner Tomichek seconds. Uh Vice Chair Carpenter, did you have a comment? Uh, well, I did just leave my mic on accidentally, but I do actually I just had a a brief question. So, you know, we are doing a motion deny here. Um, if the applicant comes in with a 35- ft flag pole and a 60 foot flag, that's all within code and that doesn't come back here. Is that correct? That's correct. they would be able to apply for a permit to construct the sign and the maximum would be the 35 ft height with the 60 square foot flag

including that anodized ball or whatever they put on the top there that they have in the plans. The top of the anodized ball in the trunk would need to be within that 35 ft height. Understood. Okay. I just just wanted to make sure we were clarifying what is what would work and what doesn't work because I don't think in even in denying the variance I don't think anyone's upset with them the idea of them having a flag pole. So thank you. Thank you. Any other discussion? All right, let's call the question. Please get a roll call. Commissioner Conir. Yes. Commissioner Tomichek. Yes. Commissioner Dunn.

Yes. Chair Boscher. Yes. Vice Chair Carpenter. No. Commissioner Morris. Yes.

Okay. The motion passes 5 to one. So, the applicant has been denied. Thank you for the presentation, staff. And uh I actually wanted to ask if there's any more old business, any new business. I have a miscellaneous business. I would like to comment on the holiday decorations the city has put up. They are very well done and very impressive. And I want to commend the city on doing a great job. I know none of you probably had anything to do with it, but I think for the record, somebody needs to tell the city they did a great job this year.

I second that motion. Thank you. I second as well. And u when is our next meeting? It will be January 27th. 27th and then another on February 10th. Correct.

All right. Thank you. And this meeting is hereby adjourned at 7:36. Thank you all. Yeah, I was really [Music] [Music] [Music] [Music]

Oo. [Music] Ooh. Ooh. Oh, [Music] oh wo.