Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Heat. Hey, Heat.

Oh, oh wo. Heyoo. Hey. Oh, yeah. Hello everyone and welcome to the April 14th, 2026 meeting of the City of Westminster Planning Commission. If you wish to speak during the hearing tonight, there's a signup sheet on the table in the back of the room. Please put your name on that and you'll be called in the order you signed up. Can we get a roll call, please? Commissioner Conir

present. Commissioner Tomichek excused. Commissioner Dunn here. Chair Boscher here. Vice Chair Carpenter here. Commissioner Young present. Commissioner Peg here. Commissioner Calling here. All right. We have a quorum. Oh, sorry. And Commissioner Morris.

Yes. Thank you. And uh first alternate commissioner calling will be voting tonight. Second alternate commissioner Morris will not be voting but will be in the audience. Thank you. All right. I would like to uh get a motion for the approval of the meeting minutes for February 10th, 2026. So moved. Okay. Do we have a second? Second. Thank you, Commissioner Jean. All right. Do we just voice vote on this one? Okay. All in favor, please say I.

I. All oppose, please say nay. So, the motion to approve the meeting minutes passes unanimously. We have one item on tonight's agenda. That's item 3A. and we uh will open the public hearing at this time. And does the city of Westminster have a presentation? Thank you.

All right. Uh good evening, commissioners. My name is Trevor Orllo, senior planner with the city's planning division. There we go. All right. Uh so 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 presentation, the mail notices, and the posted notices are hereby entered into the public record. Uh the notices of the public hearing were mailed to over 40 property owners and tenants within 300 ft of the site under consideration tonight. One public notification sign was posted on the subject property and the city has also posted the hearing date and time on it website. The project site is located within the Les Leah Manners filing to subdivision located at 7731 Knox Court. The property is also located within the RA zoning district. So as you can see on the map there. All right. So the applicant is requesting to deviate from the lot coverage maximum regulation set forth within the density schedule of the uh Westminster municipal code. The applicant is requesting this variance to allow for a single family home 2,193 square ft in size that has a lot coverage of roughly 40%. As seen on their data and lock covers.

Chair Barer, I'm sorry. Yes. Uh, aren't this computer screen supposed to be working? Yeah, it's not a big problem because we do have the big screens, but our screens are not showing. There we go. Thank you.

Lot coverage uh table on this slide. So, that's the detail of breaking down uh those dimensional requirements and It's a little hard to see, but as you'll see, they're requesting roughly 40%. So, pursuant to Westminster Municipal Code section 1145, the density schedule, properties within the RA zoning district have a lot coverage maximum of 30%. Uh, so here is the site plan. The applicant provided their official development plan set with their variance in the middle which includes this proposed site plan for the new home on the existing lot. Again, a bit hard to see much detail, but as you can see the width, size, and setbacks are all properly met for this zoning district in this type of uh project. It's just that lot coverage that's non-compliant. Again, seeking the 40% when there the maximum is 30% for that zoning district. Uh going into uh standards of approval, section 228B of the Westminster municipal code provides six criteria that must be met for the planning commission to approve the variance. Staff finds that none of the six criteria have been met for this submitt with justification in our staff analysis included in your agenda memo for your reference. Based upon this, staff recommends that the planning commission hold a public hearing and deny the requested variance to the density schedule for law cover tax. Uh denial of this application will support the following uh city priority that being strategic priority three community health and safety which is to invest in innovative and collaborative approaches to provide a continuum of services that preserve promote and protect the health, safety and environment of Westminster. I would also

like to acknowledge again that the city strategic plan will adjust in the future uh once adopted by the city council which will see this goal of community health and safety evolve into the more robust goal of vibrant and diverse economy. And with this uh conclude the staff presentation thank you all for your attention. Um I'll be happy to answer any questions you might have at this time but also we have the applicant with us tonight who will give their presentation and also be available to answer your questions. Thank you.

Okay. Does the applicant have a presentation they'd like to make? Mr. Chairman, I have a question for staff. Yes, that would be okay. Commissioner calling. Mr. Harlo, can you tell me um in the application I read somewhere that it said that the applicant had already gone through building permit process and gotten building permits approved. Is is that correct? So they have submitted for a building permit. They have not gotten a building permit approval since a building permit approval is requires the ODP waiver. Okay. To get that approval. So they have submitted for a building permit but that issuance is waiting until the ODP waiver is the waiver

for this hearing. Right. So during that process, would they have been notified that they were going to need a waiver that their square footage was exceeding the uh allowable percentage of building coverage when they submitted for building permit? You're asking? Yes. Yes. They were notified during that that they have to submit for the ODP waiver. And then when the ODP waiver was submitted, um I reviewed that and that's when I noted the lock coverage was over the maximum. So, they didn't know the lot coverage was over most likely prior to you getting it and they'd already gone through the building permit process or part of it. Well, they had submitted for the building permit process. Yes. So, but they hadn't it hadn't gone through.

So, this isn't something that's reviewed during the pre-application meeting with an applicant so that they know as part of their design criteria they need to kind of take that into consideration. So, for a project of this size, there isn't a required pre-application meeting. It's usually just a submitt. uh the applicants are told obviously they have to follow what the established what's in the code and the design standards this being the density schedule was the important one so they were provided that information needs to be met and as I mentioned they had met it on all other categories it just was the lock coverage that wasn't met right and it's too bad they didn't know about that ahead of time yeah okay thank you very much

of course any other questions okay if the applicant would like to make a presentation We can take that now. Okay.

Good afternoon everyone. Wanted to start by intro introducing myself. I'm Jesus Pñena. I'm the I'm the applicant for this uh project right here which is the Barez Residence. It's a single family uh residence. and I'll go ahead and move on and show you guys um these a quick overview of the house itself. Uh this is the front elevation and the rear and this is the left and right elevation. This is the floor plan. It's hard to not see a lot of the details, but it has a twocar garage. It's kitchen, living room, and then four bedrooms, a quick site plan, which was previously shown. Um, but as as Trevor had mentioned, um, this house goes over the lock coverage minimum that the city requires, and currently we're at about 40% coverage. These are some of the neighboring homes. Um, most of them are one-story homes. They have a similar setback at the front. Um the neighboring homes are approximately based on what I can tell on overviews about 1750 to 2,000 square ft. And then I'd also like to give some um I guess information

and clarify some details on the process of this project. Um the homeowner, you know, he chose this house plan as a one story um based on he wants to keep this house as a future home and be able to one day retire here.

Um that's why he doesn't want to include any stairs. So um not having to include a second story for him is important. And then um we aren't able to do a basement here on this project due to a high water table. that's um present based on a soil test that was done for this project. Um and then I know there's a question about the building permit. So, just to clarify, um me and the owner were able to apply for that building permit um before knowing that there was a a limit on the building coverage. And I believe it was as far as I know I think the building department doesn't have any currently any comments where everything's been resolved and I believe this is the only uh comment that we have which is from the planning uh department. Um so if we are able to get approval on this then I believe um the owner will be able to get started on this project. Um if we are approved um it is my understanding I believe um the owner would either have to restart the whole process which he has invested a lot of time and money into this already or the other option would just for him to just stop everything and and just leave the land how it is for the moment. Thank you for the time and thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

At this time, unless there are questions from commissioners, I will go ahead and open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Is there a list of people who would like to speak? I just wanted to check with uh Carrie Harmo. Did you want to speak? Yeah, I could speak. Okay. Um if you want to come up to the podium and I'll start the timer for you. Please state your name for the record when you start. Thank you.

Carrie Hatal. I live at 7720 Knox Court across the street

from this property. Um, as you all know, um, we went through a lot with that. Um, we do know that it has been vacant for a while now. This, from what it seems like, this gentleman purchased the property and we were hoping to see that something new would be in there um, instead of just a vacant lot. and um something positive, you know, and so um I've been there for about 11 years and I know that probably a lot of the other uh residents that are there as well probably would like to see something go in there. So, we're hoping that you guys could do whatever you can to support these these uh um young people here and um and try to see if we can get it move forward. That's really all I have to say. I I was actually surprised to see that the sign went up, but I was kind of wondering what was happening with it and you know. So, but anyway, unless you guys have questions for me,

I would say that you are in support of this then. Yes. Okay, great. I definitely am. Great. Thank you. Mr. Mr. Chairman, I have a question. Commissioner Calling, may I ask you a question? Um, so it's been vacant for 11 years? No, no, I've been in Oh, you've been there for 11 years and that lot has been vacant the whole time you've been there? No, it we had an explosion across the street from Oh, okay. Yeah.

I didn't know that. an explosion there and it was vacant and we had a lot of stuff happen. A lot of h houses got damaged including mine and and it there was a lot of debris and it's a long story but we just want to try to move forward with it. Got it. Okay. And um I'm I'm encouraging you guys to try to help because uh you know it was held up for a long time after that happened and um I would just like to see the vacant lot you know get get to somebody else get some use out of it and it sounds to me like they have a good plan and uh yeah let's let's bring them in. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Thank you. Thank you. I have a question for staff. Are there any other people who want to speak? Oh, yes. I suppose we better check and see. Um, go ahead. If you have a comment, I thought you were going to ask a question. Well, I I've been reminded that there may be other people who wish to speak. This is the public testimony. If you were not able to sign up, please come up now.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Brenda. I am daughter of Emilio and Maria that are um right next door um 7721 Lux Court. And I just came to support our new neighbors um in hopes that we finally move on from the tragedy that we happened two years ago for three long. It's happened for a long time. And so we've been residents there for 32 years, my parents have. And it's really sad to see the lot empty, not have neighbors. Um, and we're ready to move on. Very good. Okay. Do you guys have any questions for

on behalf of my parents? Yeah. Okay, Commissioner Dunn. Thank you. I'd just like to be filled in on what happened. Um I would love to fill you in. Um this property for 20 plus years has been um trashed. It has had many abatements. Um neighbors coming and going. Um was there a house there before? Yes, there was.

Okay. Um the house was I believe in my assumption and consideration. Um it was condemned because of a fire that was there years prior. I had contacted the city many many times on code errors as well as my neighbors. Um, the city did nothing besides kind of accommodate our neighbors due to their status in possibly mental health. And so, um, the property, um, continued to be, I'm not sure if it was, um, a ban. I mean, it was abandoned because nobody was living there. Um there was a gentleman who was um son of the homeowner who was kind of squatting in the house with permission. Um no light, no water, um quarters and um it happened to be that he blew up the house. Um he was heating himself up during the cold days um with 20 plus propane tanks and um he died at the residence.

Um it tear down half of my parents house which it was a 2:00 in the morning event 4° and half of the block half of our block on the north side were displaced from our homes. Water was shut off for about a week. Well, not for our house. Our house we actually it took us two years to get get it back together. So, um, again, it's been a very long process. So, that was roughly two 3 years ago. It was uh 21. Okay. Mhm. February of 2021.

Mhm. and my parents moved in um July of 22 after I had to get the state involved um because again the city kind of left us on our on our own. So, um we did have a lot of um people who uh did come through with us eventually after a lot of us complained and we were just so um we're at the point that we have we're excited that the house was sold um the property was sold and that somebody wants to do something and be part of our neighborhood. Uh, it's a double-edged sword because for many years we never had the support of the city to help us clean up and do what we had to do to be good neighbors. And now everybody wants to have code enforcements and building permits. And so we're kind of we're we're kind of here in support of our new neighbor.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Any more questions? Any other questions for this testimony? Nope. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anyone else wishes to speak? Seeing none, I will close the public testimony portion of the hearing and uh we can make discussions and ask questions of the applicant and staff. Um, Vice Chair Carpenter. Sorry, Chair Boscher. I just wanted to also say we didn't receive any uh voicemails or emails for Thank you. Yeah.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, just have a couple of questions. U in reviewing the ODP staff there, my questions will be probably for staff here. Uh uh was there a reason that the there was a 30% lot coverage uh placed on this? Uh was there a storm water issue? Was there another issue like that? Or was was there any justification given for the arbitrary 30% uh coverage?

Yeah. So that is this property isn't in a PUB zone. It is straight zone. So, it's zoned RA and in the density schedule for the dimensional standards, RA has a 30% block coverage maximum. So, that's applied to any property that's within the RA zoning district. Okay. Uh, that kind of leads to my second question. Are is this are we are we in the right process here? Um, I know we're going through a variance process, but uh, what is there one of our Uklitian zoning districts that would be a better fit for this uh, property that could possibly reszone to to fit this lot?

I I wouldn't say so. Um, a lot of those that are that kind of that medium to lower density uh, residential out of our straight zoned ones, there a lot of them hit that about 30%. So even if it was to be reszoned, which all its surrounding areas are a so it would already be a spot zone, it it would still be it would still have that 30% for anything else that it would be applicable to.

Okay. All right. That that answers that. Uh yeah. Uh I think that those are those are my two big questions on more on the process side than than that. to how you know kind of understanding how we got here. Um yeah, and and to the neighbors. Yeah, I and I'm sorry that happened. I I remember watching the news and watching the videos about that. That was just tragic. And yeah, that's I'm I'm sorry you all went through that.

Commissioner Peg, uh my questions are for staff. What's the square footage of the excessive coverage here? Uh do you square footage of So this the the the the lot coverage exceeds the current standard. What's the square footage of that exceedence? So the the lot coverage maximum for the zoning district is 30%. So what's being proposed is 40%. I think the table had I don't have the numbers ahead of me for the the plan set, but I mean it's 10%. Okay. More. Looking at the lot and coverage table, I see 720 ft roughly.

That sounds about right. Okay. And I noticed in applicant's presentation there was a picture of a house that had no garage. Um this one has a garage. And so that brings up my question about parking, which is um is there now a minimum parking requirement uh that did not exist when some of these homes were built? Probably when some of these homes were built, yeah, this subdivision was 1955. So obviously some of the earlier ones there's probably was a completely different standards for it. Um since then we have certain regulations around um either providing a garage or providing off streetet. Okay. So you could say that.

So what's the square footage of the garage here? 400. Okay. So more than half of the exceedence is down to our new since it was platted parking requirements. You you Yeah, I mean you could say that. I don't know if those numbers are exactly right, but it it probably is pretty close. um to that to be said though, I'm not sure when those regulations would have been in place. Uh there's probably multiple homes there that have been built after that. So, it's not to say all those homes were built in 1955. So, it's an evolving subdivision, of course. So,

but yeah. All right. Uh let's see. And then I guess um some of my other questions were a little more uh uh abstract like what's the problem with extra lock coverage? Uh I mean you could argue there's no problem. You could argue there's a problem to do with character. You you could argue a few things. Um it kind of depends on what you view as important for for a neighborhood and how you view okay the importance of character for it. How we define it is for a lot of these dimensional standards in our straight zones. So like the RA for example,

it's about a preservation of community character and neighborhood character. So the other lots being restricted to also a 30%. That's that was what was established in the code. So that's what we try to keep um you know the character set throughout. It's the same thing with setbacks. Uh also a lot of people a lot of the the need for reducing uh your imperous coverage is a is another thing that comes up there. Uh a preservation of backyards and front yards, things like that, sideyards as well. So fits a lot of the same categories that you would with like a setback or a lot width requirement things. Are there setbacks required for this lot? There are and yes, they meet the setbacks.

And they meet the setbacks. And I see here that staff cited in their analysis the spacing between structures. Yes. Which I would say is more directly achieved by setbacks than an arbitrary lot coverage percentage. Do you agree?

It can be. Uh setbacks obviously directly like your rear, your front, your sides. But lock coverage may then in fact, you know, it's all of the factors combined. So you may be like, oh, you meet your side setback here, you're right on the line for a rear setback, things like that. So with the lot coverage, you're looking at the whole lot in general. So it's kind of ballooning to the whole lot size. So that's kind of where the the um spacing between comes. When you increase the lock coverage on a lot, you're increasing the size of the building and therefore reducing the spacing. Okay. But I again we spell out specific spacing that's required. Correct. Correct.

And it doesn't violate any of those. he does not violate uh any of the setbacks. And then staff also mentioned that uh if we allow this application, other folks could apply for a similar variance. And I guess my question here is would the skyfall if that occurred?

I mean, you're the planning commission, you're the commissioner, so that's kind of your your decision to make on that. Uh it's that's a thing we talk about a lot with variance requests. The idea is that it's an equal treatment under the law for all properties. So that's why we have these standards. So it's kind of up to the planning commission to decide does this, you know, meet does this meet the criteria to be considered? And by doing this, are we actually affecting the the rest of the neighborhood? How are we affecting the community? How do how do we ensure that equal protection under the law and equal standard is still applicable to everybody. So okay, I think that's all my questions. Commissioner Calling.

Um, Mr. Harley, you're in a difficult situation because you're enforcing the code and and the variances before us to determine if there's outstanding circumstances and you didn't find any. That's why you recommended denial. Um, our job is to look at the details and see if there's any reason we can find a way to approve this. So um a lot of times you have lot coverage and and and Mr. um David was talking about David K was talking about this a lot of times lot coverage is based on your storm drainage requirements because if you have too much impervious service increases your detention requirements for the area. um is this area um do you know if this area has any drainage or flooding issues um that this percentage of change or say even if 50% of the homes in the area were to change their lot coverage would that negatively impact the storm water situation. Do we know the answer to that?

Uh that's not an answer I would be able to give. That's engineering. Yeah. What uh was noted by the applicant that is relevant here is a high groundwater. So there is high saturation there. I can't say if that if you know that lock coverage is a necessary component to ensure that but

right I would assume if if this application was approved and set a precedent other people came along and started expanding their homes increasing their lot coverage or their building coverage and it became an issue at some point the city would say we can't do this anymore because we have issues with drainage and that's one way that that would stop. So, at that point, whoever's here for the planning commission in the future would have to then say you can't expand your home for these reasons. I'm just playing out a scenario. That's not really a question. Um, sorry about that. Um, so what I'm thinking is I have a couple questions for the applicant. So, if Mr. Pena could come back up. Um, in the Mr. depending in the application there was a something about the homeowner is is a senior or is going to be a senior citizen and so they are concerned about having steps in their home. Can you tell me a little bit about that?

Yeah, since that that applicant's not or that the owner is not here. Is that correct tonight? She is here. Oh, he's right over here. Oh, okay. So, he doesn't look too old. You can do steps here but okay. He's tell me a little bit about that one. Yeah, he's just looking to, you know, keep this house as a house he can retire in the future. So, you know, when he is elderly and he doesn't want to be able to be going up and down stairs

stairs um because one of the ways because the 700 square foot are pretty much the two rooms on the back of the house which includes the primary bedroom and another bedroom. They could be put to the second floor and you could put the primary on the first floor. But again, that would require redesign that would require going back through the building department new building plans and all of that. I keep going back in my head like how come we didn't know this when the original design was done so you wouldn't have to be here asking this question for us. So there's no um currently senior or limiting factor that prevents the homeowner from having a second floor from a physical standpoint. There's not like at this point I guess currently no.

No. Okay. Um, one of the things that we take into consideration is health and safety. And I'm always open to ideas of having more senior housing, which means one level living. And so if it was a health safety issue, I would be more inclined to say, well, that person's in a wheelchair, they need to have everything on one level or something like that. Um, so that would play into my reasoning here a little bit. I is there any other reason why this needs to all be on one level? I think that's just the biggest reason. It is a family of five and just to be able to future proof their home for that they they retire. Yeah. Okay. Great. That was all my questions. Thank you very much. Mr. Graham, do you want to speak before we take the next questions?

Yes, please. Thank you, Chair Washer. Um, I just want to remind the planning commission that in when it comes to approving or denying a variance, your criteria are in the municipal code section 228 subsection B. Every one of those criteria must be met before you can approve a variance. And and that is what you need to focus on. And that is that is what you need to be talking about um to avoid issues that may occur down the line. So I would I would encourage you to focus on those criteria and only those criteria. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, Commissioner Conir, I think you're up. Thanks. I think this is I'll go ahead and ask staff. Uh, I just wanted to get a a a firmer grip on this sizing um proportionate sizing problem. The the building coverage or GFA is 2876 square ft. That's the 39.73% coverage. The FFA square footage is tw00 ft. What is the distinction between those two numbers? Um, without looking at it, um, I believe that has to do with the garage.

Garage. Okay. That's what I That's So that's about 700 ft. Okay. Commissioner Dunn. Um, I guess this is for staff, too. There was a uh uh there was an issue about the applicant digging a basement. um because of a high water table. Is that is that current in the neighborhood?

Uh so that the applicant had told us that based off their uh their site being surveyed. Uh so that wasn't a thing we imposed on them. Um but I believe that that that is present throughout the entire neighborhood, but that came from from them when they began their process, not from us. So there are no basements in this neighborhood? I'm not sure. We didn't do a review of that. Okay. Thank you, Vice Chair Carpenter.

Uh thank you. Uh question for the applicant. Uh knowing that and and maybe staff too, but definitely the applicant. Uh knowing the history of this property and the explosion and everything else, uh is there any special remediation to the site you have to do in order to make it buildable since after the uh disaster?

I guess I wasn't aware of everything that had happened at that lot. Um, when the owner came to me to apply for the building permits, um, based on just based on what I've seen on this property, it looks like it's been cleaned up. Um, but I can't say if there's been there needs to be additional steps to get it. Okay. You didn't do a phase one or get a phase one environmental study or anything like that just to or any any environmental testing out there to see? Not that I know of. Just the soils report.

Okay. and and Okay. And staff, do you have any knowledge of I I know this was a hot city issue a few years ago. Uh do you have any knowledge about the cleanup that happened on the lot?

I I have some peripheral knowledge of it. Uh the planning division or the community services department was not involved in the abatement of the of the nuisance that the neighbors mentioned. Uh however um the the city did abate the nuisance as described. Um the city did uh uh retain ownership of the property while the property was thoroughly cleaned up. I understand it was a a pretty lengthy process, a pretty involved and costly process. And then the uh the the the city of course did not want to retain ownership of the property. So, the city disposed of it. Uh, but it is my understanding without details to be able to speak of, uh, the city did responsibly clean up the property when it was in city's ownership.

Yeah. Did the city sell it to the applicant? Uh, Mr. Graham may have some more information.

Yeah. I I'd just like to add on to what planning manager McConnell said. Um the spit the city spent $330,000 to clean up this property. Um there was asbestous in the house. Um so the property had to be tented. Everything was removed from the property. Um the soil I think one at least a foot down uh was removed from the property as well and additional uh soil was brought in. I do not recall whether uh the foundation was completely removed or if it was just filled in. Um but yes, so we the city did hire um a remediation contractor for the asbestous um and like I said tented the property so that their cleanup would not spread to other properties. So um this property got a clean bill of health to as far as we understand it.

Okay, great. Thank you. And do you know if did the city dispose of it to the applicant or is this a a or the not the applicant the own the new owner or I mean dispose the property not sell the property. You said dispose of it so now I'm using that word but well dispose because of my lack of familiarity with how the city uh acquired it and then and then disposed of it. Um Mr. Graham might know some more about that to answer your question.

Um, I do not recall the name of the party that acquired um the property. I imagine imagine the applicant could or the the owner could speak to that. Um, the city acquired the property through condemnation. Well, I'm sorry, foreclosure, foreclosing the leans on the property. The prior owner was not able to pay those. And then the city um listed the property for sale. And I think uh I don't remember what the final price was. It's public um but it's probably around the $100,000 range.

Sure. Sure. Yeah. Uh yeah. And Vice Carpenter and and commissioners uh the question came up about the high water table. As Mr. Harlo mentioned, that's not data that the city had or at least the planning division. the the applicant did bring this to to the attention through this application. Um I guess to add a little a little more insight into that uh without knowing uh the data on that u I don't know that it would be proper to assume that the entire neighborhood w was in the same situation with the level of water table. It could vary lot by lot. Um so um essentially that this lot lot in terms of high water table might not be uh exactly the same as other lots.

Thank you. That's very helpful. All right, I'm think I'm done with questions for the moment. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? I have a question for staff. Was a survey of this vicinity done to see if any of the the other homes are exceeding the 30% u coverage? Uh we did not do a full lot by lot survey. Uh the applicant had done uh some initial uh view of that and we did kind of some some just initial looking. We didn't do anything that would involve a full survey or a full analysis just

Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Well, in that case, I am going to close the public hearing or the public testimony portion of the hearing and uh ask either for a motion or further discussion on this application. Commissioner Peg.

Uh yes. I'd like to move to approve this. Uh let's see. I move that the planning commission approve the requested lot coverage variance for Leslie Manors filing number two subdivision located at 7731 Knox Court. This recommendation is based on a finding that the requested variance is supported by the criteria set forth in section 2-2-8B of the Westminster Municipal Code. Do we have a second? I'll second it. Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you. Discussion. Sure. Uh I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Go ahead. Uh okay. Tell us why you're you're putting this motion before us.

Yeah. The uh I think there is a unique physical circumstance in the high water table. Um staff believes it's reasonable that that doesn't exist everywhere. Um, additionally, uh, applying the strict application here does cause a hardship that I believe is unnecessary, which is to send someone back to the, uh, uh, um, design stage of this building. Um, and, uh, additionally that um, granting this variance won't alter the essential character of the neighborhood. Um, the drawings we saw of the home look consistent with other homes nearby. Um, additionally, we had the neighbors come by and tell us that they support this. Uh, I think, um, I can make some judgment about whether or not this will hurt neighborhood character, but it's it's hard to say that when people show up and say, "Yes, build this," that it's harmful. Um, so for uh uh those reason Oh, yes. And uh uh unusual circumstances don't exist throughout the neighborhood. um property can't reasonably developed with a basement um and that the special conditions and circumstances do not result in the present and prior actions of the applicant. So uh I I move to pass this.

Okay, Commissioner Conir.

Yeah, thanks. F first off, I I start with the the provisions of the code, and I I don't know that I um see that there is a justification under any of the um criteria. Uh we I think that I I you know, starting with uh the criteria itself, um I there can be a two-story home built there. There can be a home with the basement. There are ways to deal with high water tables. So, there can be one or the other constructed there. There can be a smaller home built like the surrounding homes built there. Um, I also think about our um when when we open the Pandora's box of saying, well, we're going to go ahead and approve it anyway for other reasons. Now, we're opening ourselves up to rule 106 challenges in the future when we don't approve a variance. And that's a great concern of mine. And uh I that is tempered, by the way. My my thinking on this is is strict, but it's tempered by the fact that the neighbors have shown up in support uh and want to have a home constructed there. And I I I get that and that in this particular circumstance, that's probably more important than many other areas where there are vacant lots. Um, but I I think that uh in in my profession, my my approach would be let's find another way to make this work and get a home built on there. But I don't believe that um that uh setting aside or or or ignoring the requirements that we have under the criteria for this u uh size lot uh is justified. And to say that a 30% coverage is is just arbitrary. Um we could say that about every

provision of the Westminster City Code then and we're I I think the city council approved the Westminster Code. Uh and things are there for a reason. If there was a justification or under these criteria, then that would be a rationale for a variance. I I just don't see it in this case. Commissioner Dun.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, I'm also torn on this uh idea. I can find I think I can find a grounds for an exception to number two, the whole water table issue. And uh um I think that's that would be another ground. But I think the main the main points that I found on this is um what uh Commissioner Calling has established through her questioning and that is when the applicant knew about the the coverage the or the coverage restriction. when the applicant knew. Uh that could possibly be a question for court of law since since we are uh since we are discussing varying uh versions of the facts and uh to which we have to apply this statute. Um, that's the main sticking point with me. Um, however, that still doesn't cover all six um all six points of the of the statute. So, that would that would lean me to uh to vote against uh Commissioner Peg's motion. Vice Chair Carpenter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, yeah, I I definitely respect uh Commissioner Camir and Commissioner Dunn's uh analysis there. Um, you know, I you know, I'm and I'm I'm also torn here. Um, you know, you know, I think we I think there are practical difficulties here. But I think we've got our you know the we've talked about the physical circumstances. Uh you you know you physical circumstances the house blew up and the city bought the hang lot and had to abate it. I mean that's unique in itself. Not just that they can't have a basement. Um and and there these unusual circumstances or conditions do not exist throughout the neighborhood. I don't think anyone else in the neighborhood bought their lot from the city. Um, and yeah, you know, I don't and five and six are I don't think it's going to alter the essential character. I think it will that the special conditions and circumstances about this lot and the problems with the NE not the problems with the neighbors but the problems caused by to the neighbors I should say uh is you know that's really there um and I'm I'm working on number four that because of such physical circumstances or conditions the property cannot be reasonably developed and conformed with the provisions of this code. Um, and I'm stuck because the city sold them the

lot. They didn't obviously didn't know the didn't know these things. It's matches everything else. And usually we would grant a variance in this case. Um, Um, I mean, it can't be reasonably developed to the standards that we want or the standards that the applicant wants. I don't know. I'm I'm I'm really struggling with number four. So if any So Commissioner Peg, if someone else can can help give us some justification for that, that would be uh that would be very helpful. Thanks.

Thank you, Commissioner Caner. Yeah, thanks. Two things. First off, I think the unusual circumstances of physical circumstances of the property, I think, were remediated with the expenditure of $300,000 by the city. And I don't believe that this owner bought it from the city. So I think that we have uh there were mean conveyances as I understand.

Um I don't know that that really matters to be frank. Um but in terms of um the the legal issue I see fundamentally you have a person buying property you're on notice and of this is not you're on notice of a hidden danger like uh uh asbestos that was dealt with by the city before they bought it. They're we're talking about a city code that anyone who wants to build on a vacant lot can find out about before they submit their building permits or whatever. The owner is charged with understanding what the law is when they purchase the lot and when they want to proceed with developing the lot. Now, if it were impossible to build a two-story home or if it were impossible to put in a a basement, we don't have those facts before us. That's a different matter. Those are physical circumstances that would require us to review some of these items, but fundamentally the application has to address all six criteria. And we're struggling to come up with ways to justify how they do so. And I don't think that's I Well, enough said.

Commissioner Cole,

um I'm I'm with with Commissioner Kir on this one. I um I want a house to be built on this lot and I would like you guys to build a house on this lot. I'd like you to comply with the code though. Um the code has requirements and you know those are available that you can research prior to buying the property and complying with those requirements. The second story, you could put the primary bedroom on the main level for when you're um when you retire and not have to go up to the second level. Um, I um I I think that we need to follow the code because that's why we're here. We're volunteers and our responsibility is to read the code as Mr. Graham has pointed out. Um, we have to make our decisions based on that code and those criteria. There are six criteria and we have to follow all six of those. So, I will not be supporting this motion.

Okay. I'll throw in my two cents. I agree. I wish this could be a variance, but no ground has been broken. A redesign is will cost money, but it won't be ownorous. And the twotory option is still a very good way to to make this house conform to all of the variance or all of the codes that would affect it. So although I would love to see this home be built as it is, I think I'm going to vote against this emotion. Any other discussion? Seeing that there's no further discussion, I will ask the secretary for a roll call vote. It's state that Um, secretary asked as asked a question about what the vote would be for. So, I just want to clarify. Um, Commissioner Peg made the motion and it was seconded to approve the variance. So, a vote yes would approve the variance. A vote no would not approve the variance.

Uh, Commissioner Conir, no. Uh, Commissioner Dunn, no. Chair Boscher. No. Commissioner Carpenter.

No. I'm sorry. Commissioner Young. Yes, Commissioner Peg. Yes, Commissioner Collie. No. Okay, so the motion fails, which means we need another motion on this application. Chair Boscher, we don't actually need another motion. The the proposed application has not been approved, therefore it is denied.

Okay. Um, this is not a situation where the planning commission is making a recommendation to the city council. This is the final vote. So, in a situation like that, like this, it's just the one vote. Okay. Thank you for clarification. You're welcome. All right. Mr. Sure. So, we have a motion that has definitively um not supported the variance and Commissioner Dunn.

Uh thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say to the applicants that um I take no pleasure in this vote. Um uh as Commissioner Calling has mentioned that it's um it's our duty to follow the law and that's what we had to do today. So I'm sorry to that it came out this way but u I appreciate your application. Vice Chair Carpenter.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. And I feel the same way as uh Commissioner Dunn. I'm really I'm very torn and I just want to request that staff uh work with the applicant and try to come up with something that can meet the code and but I just couldn't get over item number four that just wasn't there. I'm sorry that I I I really wanted to say yes. Any other discussion? Okay, moving on. Is there any old business that needs to be addressed? Any miscellaneous business? Okay, seeing none, this meeting is adjourned at 7:57 p.m. Thank you everyone. Uh oh. Uh oh. Oh, hey.

Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat. Heat.