Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Aren't you looking? Good evening. Welcome to the April 28th, 2026 meeting of the planning commission. The time is now 6:56. Pretty soon, our audience will be streaming in from home. Um, I'll ask the chair to start the meeting at 7:00.

So, what do you say? Um, so, um, once you once you open the public hearing, uh, just before me, just call on me because I need to make a statement. Okay. So, right after I open that public hearing.

Right after Yeah. So, once you get to agenda 3A, then I'll I'll make my statement. I'll just rece. And then everybody has a verbal record of what to

Yeah. Do you guys think this one is VF1? ice cream. What do you think? It's okay.

Hello everyone and welcome to the April 28th, 2026 meeting of the City of Westminster Planning Commission. I need to let everyone know that if you'd like to speak tonight, there is a signup sheet in the back of the room on the table. Please sign up there. At this time, I will ask Secretary to call role. Commissioner Conir, excused. Commissioner Tomichek, present. Commissioner Dunn here. Chair Boscher here. Vice Chair Carpenter here. Commissioner Young excused.

Commissioner Peg here. Commissioner Calling here and Commissioner Morris here. Very good. We have a quorum and the alternate will be voting tonight. That's Commissioner Morris. Thank you. And Commissioner Collie. and Commissioner Calling. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. She's an alternate. I did not know that. Commissioner Colling will also be voting. Thank you for correcting me there. Do we have a motion to approve the preceding meeting minutes for April 14th, 2026?

So moved. Commissioner Calling. Thank you. Do we have a second? Second, Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you. This is a voice vote. So, please, if you approve of this, vote yay. And if you're opposed, say nay. All in favor? Yay. Yay. All opposed. Motion passes unanimously.

We have two items on this evening's agenda. Item 3A, public hearing and recommendation of a proposed comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary development plan amendment for Manderlay Gardens track 10 lot 2 fuel station and convenience store and item 3B proposed update to the planning commission bylaws probably just a discussion at this point. Therefore, I hereby open the public hearing on item 3A, the Mandandalay Gardens track 10, lot 2 fuel station. Do we have a presentation from the city? Vice Chair Carpenter.

Oh, excuse me. Thank you. I recognize Vice Chair Carpenter at this moment to make a statement.

Yep. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh so as I was walking in the building this evening, I received a text message uh from uh Marcus Faulner who is a community member not involved with this project. But uh I wanted to read this uh for the record and also state that I'm going to judge this application based on the evidence presented tonight and not based on any expert communication of any sort. Uh so um Mr. Pner said, "I talked with Damont last week and asked him about this application pending. He thought it was already a gas station that brought in Flex Industrial. He will get in a letter. I am not part of the applicant team but reviewed the case and that is the end of his message and I did not respond."

Thank you for that. So that is on the public record now. So city has a presentation for us this evening. I recognize um planner Berhoff. Good evening and thank you.

Testing. All right. Good evening and thank you. Uh good evening commissioners. My name is Carson Bayerhoff, 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 attachments, 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 180 property owners, tenants, and HOAs within 1,000 ft of the parcel under consideration tonight. Eight public notification signs, or excuse me, six 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 subject property is a currently vacant site located on the southeast corner of West 108th Avenue and Wadssworth Parkway as identified in red on the vicinity map. On the left of the slide, you will see the current comprehensive plan use 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 2 that would be amended with this proposed change and its relationship to the the surrounding and existing employment flex land use design as a nation on the remainder of the Mandandalay Gardens track 10. History of the comprehensive plan land use designations in the 2013 update to the comprehensive plan. The land use designation for the larger Mandandalay Gardens Track 10 property was changed from business park to retail commercial to preserve retail services for the Westmore area and to offset the loss of the previously designated retail commercial land uses across Wadssworth,

which was redesated 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 acres from commercial to flex light industrial. This approval recommendation was conditioned that a multi-tenant commercial building would be required for the subject property Manderlay Gardens track 10 lot 2 and that a freestanding pad site would be prohibited and that automobile uses would be limited or potentially prohibited. The 20440 comprehensive plan was adopted in 2023 and retained the the the commercial designation for lot 2. The commercial designation limits autooriented uses to be part of a larger commercial development and limits limits service commercial land uses to be located on areas away from gateway locations and major intersections. Section 11521 of the Westminster Municipal Code contains 10 criteria that are to be considered when reviewing land use amendments. These cover compliance with city regulations and policies, analysts of planning and their impacts on surrounding communities, site constraints and impacts on existing infrastructure. Site uh staff received the comprehensive plan amendment from the applicant to allow for the development of a fuel station with a convenience store. The proposed land use amendment conflicts with the general area's demand for commercial uses and the comprehensive plan's locationational 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, compat 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 2. 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, the planning commission could recommend to city council to 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 would 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 15, 2025. Primary concerns included 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. Concerned with the proposed use not being suitable for the surrounding community with community expressing interest in other types of commercial land uses and concerned with the project's design and visibility toward the surrounding community as well as the environmental impacts from the proposed use and questions on how it 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 would be reviewed for compliance with the official development plan amendment. Staff recommends that the planning commission hold a public hearing and recommend that city council deny the comprehensive plan amendment and preliminary development plan amendment. Staff finds that a recommendation of approval of this application would conflict with the city's strategic plan priorities of access to opportunity and resilient infrastructure as the requests facilitate a highway oriented autodependent land use that does not address the missing retail services from this area and the employment centers in the the area indicating a desire for such uses to support the local workforce which would be undermined by approval of a convenience store with gas station at this location. The applicant is here with us tonight and has a presentation to share with you as well. Thank you for your attention. There are other staff members with us this evening. We would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Thank you.

Thank you.

If the applicant is ready, we're ready to hear your presentation. Great. Um, let me first introduce myself. My name is David Foster, uh, 360 South Garfield, uh, land use council for the applicant with my colleague Stefan, with my client Braxton, and also with our engineer from um, uh, with Aaron with the with our engineering services. So, we'll be in a position to answer any questions that you might have. Um, I'm going to turn it over to Braxton initially to just give a little bit of background about what the retail use will look like and then I unfortunately will come back up, unfortunate for you promptly, um, to kind of walk through why uh, land use attorney has to come up here for a comp plan amendment. Um, and so we'll go through that uh, in short order. So, first Braxton.

Hi, Planning Commission. Thank you for having me tonight. I'm Braxton Key. I'm with Quick Trip. Um, little background on me. I've spent 16 years with Quick Trip. I started when I was 16 years old. Um, worked my way up, sweeping, mopping floors, you know, cleaning doors, tending to customers, worked up to management. Um, and then now I'm here in front of you guys today trying to build the future of Quirrip so that other 16 year olds can have the opportunity that I did to grow and succeed and to hopefully move to this beautiful state and enjoy your guys' community um and be a part of your community. Carson, if we can go to the next slide, I'll give you guys a few fast facts about QuickRip. Um, so we've spent 15 years on Fortune's 100 best companies to work for. Um, I I would say that's 15 years too short. should be on there the last 70 years because we're an excellent company. Um we're perially per perennially uh one of the top 100 privately held companies in the country. We create an average of 20 new jobs per store. That is initial job creation. Um throughout the course of a store, we see anywhere from 200 to 400 jobs created. So that's the life of about 30 to 50 years of that store. Plan on being on your corner forever. Um we want to be a part of your community forever. We have never laid off a single employee in our 70-year history. Something that we strive to continue to work towards. Um that is, you know, a moniker of success that we are able to preserve jobs and never lay anybody off. If a store does close, we give generous relocation packages to other stores within the area or if they require to move to another state, we'll move them to another state. Our average store manager salary is about $110,000 per year. This is a Monday through Friday job. So, they work 5 to 3:00 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. to 3 p.m. Um, they get full health benefits. They get stock employee plan. They get, you know, buy in to any

suggestions that we might have from our uh employees. They're they're very vocal and a part of our company and we value and respect any comments that they bring to us. Um, the next entry level is going to be assistant manager. They make about $55,000. Again, this is a full-time job. They get full benefits, full healthare. They get everything that I would get. Um, they get employee stock share. They're part of our 401k program. I mean, they're they're part of our community that we've created as a company. Um, and they have the opportunity to work their way up, which I'm an example of that. I started, like I said, in stores 16 years ago. Um, QuickRip also contributes 5% of our profits annually to local charities. um that was north of $60 million this year and we hope to beat that if not double that next year and continue to help our communities that we're in. We are also a National Safe Place uh Foundation member. So if an endangered youth ever comes into our stores, they're able to ask for help. We call National Safe Place organization, they come pick them up or we call the police depending upon the situation. They are locked in our back room until those services arrive. So they are safe. They're fed water. they get food, whatever they need to make them feel safe and at our store is, you know, our top priority. So, thank you guys so much. Really appreciate your time and hope to uh get an approval.

Thank you.

So, I'll just ask that you move on to the next slide. Um, so it's important actually to think about this request as not having happened just a few months ago and appreciate Carson uh the work that you've done on this application, but really in order to understand why I'm here is because it really goes back to 2019 uh when you as a planning commission in the city council approved a comprehensive plan amendment uh in in order to enable not seven acres but almost eight of the nine acres uh to be um built out as a industrial u flex uh for employment and and uh fortunately Carson included that staff uh memo uh in tonight's uh agenda packet and there are some interesting things uh that are in that very packet that first of all there wasn't a specific uh project that was under review at that time. Um it was um you know unknown as to whether or not an employment user would end up there. Uh even though it was the obvious intent uh of the city council and the planning commission that that would happen. Uh it was important to create a more diversified economy which is another criteria that you still have in your comprehensive plan today. uh orderly physical growth was important and that was another reason why you as a planning commission and the city council made that amendment back in 2019. Um and at the end of the day it was really about a broad range of employment opportunities. Again another criteria that you have in your uh comprehensive plan today. But here was the problem. Uh phasing was the conundrum. uh you were uh creating a

new comprehensive plan amendment for 7.8 acres of the 9 acres and the only thing that wanted to happen at that site was somebody wanted to build on the corner. They wanted to build a retail operation, gas station or inline retail, and there was concern that building out perhaps as a gas station was going to ruin the opportunity for the employment uh behind. And so it never happened. And so what ended up happening is that in 2022, Quick Trip bought the property. Quickrip of course wasn't going to need nine acres for its gas station and convenience store. And so what they did was they found uh somebody to buy the property who was going to build that very um uh exact employment facility, the light industrial flex space that the city had contemplated back in 2019 and it was going to be phased. So that was going to be built first and then at the conclusion of that construction the quick trip would build out on the corner. How do we know that was being contemplated? Couple of reasons. One is as was mentioned by Carson in 2023 the city adopted a new comprehensive plan that did something a little bit peculiar on this corner. It took it from commercial service, which allowed the gas station as a uh principal use, and turned it into commercial, which created it only as a secondary use, not prohibited uh by any means, but as a secondary use. And in 2024, the um PDP amendment was presented to the planning commission and the city council to accommodate the new flex

industrial user that if you've been by the site, you know it's now done. Um retaining that corner for Quicktrip. How do we know this? Well, here's a copy of the uh official development plan that was being uh worked on during that process. And as many of you have probably seen comments on these documents in the past, the city identifies comments on their ODPS. This comment in particular on the very site that we're talking about tonight has a comment that reads, I'm sorry, I'm going to probably have to move this about into the next room. um for this lot. Do you want to show the gas station now? Um so you don't have to do another ODP. So that's when the industrial plex was being approved through the PDP. So for the ODP, the question is, do you want to just go ahead and wrap up an ODP for this corner? Well, the answer should have been yes, obviously, because we wouldn't be here tonight. But that isn't how it moved forward. And so shortly thereafter, um, Quick Trip did uh come forward, made their presentation, made their application to do exactly what we're trying to do tonight, and that is build the Quick Trip, the convenience store, the convenience retail along with the gas station on this corner. The staff report tonight, which again uh is well done. identifies on the second page um in its summary statement, the request consists of a 1.25 acre portion of a larger 9 acre property, which is exactly right. This was just about 15% of the overall site which was uh

contemplated uh for the overall site uh even back in in 2022 when Quicktrip purchased the site. And so when you look at um the comprehensive plan today and I would you know draw your attention to page 39 and I what I tried to do is I tried to use many of the same uh pages that staff put in the report tonight as opposed to bringing the entire comprehensive plan because as we all know I could probably find 43 different references in the comprehensive plan that would meet the requests that we're making, but I I wanted to use the pages that staff used tonight. And so the first page is page 39, which is where it identifies commercial in the comp plan. And I'll read that it states auto service stations, which is what we are today. Auto service stations, convenience stores, drive-through facilities, and other similar uses may be permitted when incorporated into a larger commercial development. I would argue that since 2019, which is why I wanted to start with 2019, this has always been a larger commercial development. The city, you as the planning commission, the city council identified 7.82 82 acres for flex left the balance for the retail and this has always been what I would consider to be incorporated into a larger commercial development. So it begs the question frankly why do we need a comprehensive amendment because we already are commercial and the reason is is because staff asked us to go through this process. they were not willing to move forward uh with our reliance on commercial as the comprehensive plan designation. So, we're asking for a slight modification

from commercial to commercial service because you'll see in the commercial development standards that the uh the standards for uh commercial allow the retail um store uh the secondary use uh in the commercial development standards as the auto oriented use. So that's how we end up with this request here tonight. Um the additionally I would just make a note and we I I I believe Veronica probably sent around the letter that we submitted um for the packet tonight on uh unidentified page um but it looks like it's probably page three. Uh what we tried to do is identify a little bit of the history and I would draw your attention. This is what the cover of the letter looks like. It's just with our um law firm. Uh and it's a section on history. And the last um paragraph on that page under history, I think is really what this uh conversation is about tonight. that it was the city's request that QuickRip wait to develop the property in planning area A until after the rest of the pad was developed. Quote, there's a PDP note um that we're amending. Uh but in that PDP, it says the employment project in this application will be developed ahead of planning area 2, retail commercial pad, which will likely be a retail commercial use submitted and developed separately. And then you'll see what I uh underline there. How in the world would we have ever as the owners of the property not anticipated or worked with the city to have an accommodation for

the very use that we brought bought the property for in the first place in 2022. Um so those are many of the the kind of the general reasons and the history around our request tonight and then to the extent that there are criteria and we can just kind of quickly move through the slideshow. We put criteria on at the end of um the slideshow. I would argue that in using the comprehensive plan again, we can move to page um 46. Uh goal LU2 is support a broad range of employment, service, and office land uses to strengthen the city's economic base and opportunities for economic growth. Continue to diversify commercial, light, industrial, and institutional uses in the city. promote the development of employment uses in areas with convenient access to commercial and business services which again I would argue is exactly uh what our request is tonight and uh goal uh ER4 promote a balance of land uses revitalization and redevelopment 4.3 promote 4.3 is promote a balance of differing development types and locations so I um I would ask that you as a planning commission um forward a recommendation of approval for our land use uh for our comprehensive plan amendment tonight. I really don't want to spend too much time talking about the PDP amendment and the criteria because if you failed to make a recommendation on the approval of the comp plan amendment then of course you're not going to approve the PDP amendment because we would not be consistent with

the comprehensive plan. So this is really the first hurdle. um the criteria for the PDP amendment would be easily met if the comprehensive plan is amended tonight. So that's what we would be asking of you and certainly we're here for any questions that you might have. Thank you. Any questions at this time from commissioners? No. Okay. Any questions for staff? Oh, Commissioner Peg.

I do have questions for staff. Uh uh basically one big question. Can we go back in the slides and revisit your specific objections? There would have been two different sites for that. One for the comprehensive plan and one for the PDP. Which one would you like me to go back to?

Uh let's start with the comp plan. I just need time to read this. That's That's Okay. You said eight out of the 10 standards of approval uh aren't met. Which which eight? So in the uh staff agenda memo, the staff lists reasons for each of the criteria items and they're individually not noted in the memo. Did you want me to go over any particular one?

Uh, no, I think I got it. Thank you. Of course. Did you still want me to go over to the the the preliminary development plan analysis as well?

Uh, yes, please. Okay, I've got it. Thank you. Of course. Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh I guess I mean I guess my my bigger question is how did we get here? But uh I know we've amended the comprehensive plan at least twice uh like complete overhauls as well as individual lots over the years. Um, you know, one question I always ask our planning staff is, are we downzoning somebody? Are we taking away somebody's rights because we're changing it? And

we're always assured no. And it and at least if we believe the applicant story, uh, it it seems that we have. So um and then I'm looking at the PDP analysis and it it says you know that you have on the screen says that secondary uses are already allowed on lot two and the proposed uses are the only difference is it becomes a primary use it seems like versus a secondary use. So I I guess I'd like I'd like some clarification on this because I'm I'm just a little bit confused. Absolutely. So when the uh comprehensive plan designated the entire area as commercial prior to the applicant initiated um amendment in 2019 that the secondary allowance would have applied and in that case that would have been limited to 25% of the overall development that could go to a use like this. Um obviously when the uh amendment then went forward and there's only the 1.25 25 acre. 25% of that wouldn't be a developable lot for for a fuel station.

Okay. So, you said 25% it's not 0.25 acres, 1.25 acres. I believe that would be the difference between like a primary and a secondary use allowance. I mean, so so you're correct when you're saying that it it's allowed as a secondary use. I'm saying that that secondary use allowance couldn't be applied to a to a acreage of this the site.

So, so playing devil's advocate, but if they had put this service station on the ODP, we wouldn't be here tonight is uh and the as as we were going, am I am I misinterpreting uh what you're saying? Prior to the comp plan change when it was when all nine plus acres was commercial. Prior to the comp plan change. Yeah. Okay. Okay. I'm a little confused on the dates. What year was that ODP? The uh approved ODP is 2024. That's one of the attachments in the staff agenda memo as well.

Okay. And this lot was commercial in a prior version of the comp plan. Correct. Okay. And and current. And current. Okay. Uh All right. And the other 7 something acres approximately 7.7 close to eight. Yes. Were zoned commercial. The comprehensive land designation at the time was the uh commercial designation as well. Um and then after the approved amendment it was employment flex which is what it is now. Okay.

The amendment to employment flex redesated the seven. When did that happen? What was 2019? Okay. That particular one was an an applicant request. That was one that Mr. Carpenter mentioned occasionally happens where a property owner requests a change to the comp plan. It's analyzed and the city council agrees or disagrees with it. Okay. So, in 2019, the owner of 9 acres of the entire track 10. Okay. Uh um um requested a change from commercial

from commercial. The entire thing was commercial at that time to that 7ish or point whatever acres to employment flex at that point. At that time the previous comp plan that was flex light industrial. It's the equivalent of employment flex in the 2040 plan. Okay. In 2019, there was a request to change from commercial to employment flex on 7.8 acres. Um, and they left this 1.2 acres is commercial. Okay. And gas station is a secondary allowed use on commercial.

In the current comp plan, the uh commercial Okay. What was in effect in 2019? it was retail commercial which is the equivalent to the 2040s commercial. Okay. And gas station still would have been a secondary use in that case as I recall. Yes.

And part of the approval of that 2019 amendment was the the staff condition that this would be a inline retail commercial building. So it wouldn't really be applicable in another case with the secondary or primary because that was a specific condition. Sorry, slow down. Uh uh uh so there was this 2019 request and there was a condition for approval or it was conditionally approved. Is that what I'm hearing? The part of the staff analysis for the recommendation of approval was a condition that this stay as a multi- a multi-tenant inline retail commercial building and that um a that independent auto oriented uses would be prohibited or or potentially limited and that it would not be a freestanding pad site.

Okay. And then city council approved the request. Did they approve it with that condition? That would have been the the approval at the time. Yes.

Okay. Okay. What was the next land use change or request or whatever action in the chain of things that got us here? We're we just talked about 2019. Did anything happen in 2020? The the next change would have been the city initiative comp plan update. Okay. And then now we're here before you today. When was the comp plan update? That would have been the 2023. Correct.

2023. Yes. Okay. And at comp plan update changed the Okay. It didn't change the zoning, right? The zoning stayed the same, but the designated use by the comp plan. Am I using the right vocabulary here? The comp plan was amended. The zoning stayed PUD. Zoning stayed PUD. Okay. Okay. And so then in the 2020 comp plan update, it was changed from employment flex to So in the

Oh, sorry. The employment flex was on 7.8 acres. The commercial uh sorry, retail commercial was on this 1.2 acres that we're talking about today. So prior to the 2040 plan, it was designated um flex light industrial on the 7 whatever acres. Okay.

The remainder was retail commercial. All designations in the comp plan that were flex light industrial in the 2040 became employment flex. It was a reimagining somewhat of that land use designation, but it it didn't redesate every property that was designated as flex and industrial that was on the 7.8 acres. Yeah. Okay. And then what about the 1.2 acres that we're talking that went from retail commercial to commercial in the 2040 plan. So everything that was retail commercial in the previous comp plan got converted to commercial. Okay.

Just a different nomclature and different uh regulations that apply. Okay. And then in that case, uh, gas station was still a secondary use, but the city council had already approved the comp plan designation of, um, of the rest of the 7.8 acres. Yes, that carried over with the 2040 comp. Okay. So, yeah. Okay.

Uh and then in 2024 something happened if I recall from testimony. I'm just trying to walk through this. I'm I'm No, understood. 2024 is when the uh official development plan and the the PDP for the overall track 10 was approved.

Okay. And that was when staff commented, do you want to show the gas station? I can't speak to that um those red lines. I was not part of the the review at that time. Uh sometimes that with the the different rounds of review, um staff can make comments, but they're not final until they're brought up before hearing. So, that's the only thing I can really speak to that unless they're brought up as separate conditions.

Okay. I see other people have questions. I'll yield. Uh, I will get to the other commissioners who wish to speak, but first I'd like to ask, does the city acknowledge that there was an understanding with this applicant that a gas station was a possibility for future development? We understand it was their desire. They have to get entitled for that. And entitlements are granted by the city council and they're granted in accordance with the comp plan. So they would have to seek the entitlement that they're seeking today. Okay. Thank you. Uh Commissioner Morris,

so in 2023 when y'all were asked whether or not we wanted to include the gas station on the as part of it and you said that that's not how it moved forward. How did it move forward? So, can I take a quick step back because Mr. Peg has asked like the critical questions tonight and I just want a chance to opine on a couple of the questions that you asked the the staff. Uh first is this property had a comprehensive plan designation as commercial retail before 2023 and became commercial in 2023.

It didn't become commercial service that we're asking for tonight that would keep it as a primary use for fueling station. So I I think we might have a disagreement and probably would make sense. I think we just said the same thing.

Well, I don't think so because um had the city kept the same designation in the comp plan as was consistent with commercial retail. They would have designated it as commercial service which allows for the gas station as a primary use and not a secondary use. Unfortunately, in the comp plan from 2023, it was designated commercial, not commercial service.

And so we became a secondary use, not a primary use. That's a big distinction. The city council changed it from retail commercial to commercial service. Commercial was not contemplated for this. Right. So again the question we're saying the same thing.

We're not because it was specifically asked when you were designated comprehensive when you were figuring out a comprehensive plan designation the goal was not to downzone. That was a question that somebody up there asked. Maybe it was you, Mr. Carpenter, or you, Mr. Peg. And it seems to me that if I'm now requesting an amendment to get back to a primary use, then I was downzoned through that comprehensive plan amendment. And maybe we can agree that that changed. That's why we're here seeking an amendment. Otherwise, we wouldn't have to if it was designated commercial service. Is that fair? uh somewhat, but I wouldn't use the term down zone. This is not a zoning category. This is a comprehensive plan. So, one thing I would clarify to answer Mr. Carpenters's question too, the city council did intentionally, if you want to use the term down zone, downzone things across the board, they were looking to in some cases save on water resources and you'll remember some of those changes. So, it's not accurate to say that it wasn't the city's intention or the city council's intention to not downzone stuff. Again, hate to use that term because this is a comp plan amendment, but it's an easier to understand term and I understand why you're using it. And and this is a conversation that is probably better for a land use class in in law school in terms of when you have land use designations in a comprehensive plan that are preventing you from using an entitlement on your property to build what you think you're allowed to use. There would be an argument that your comprehensive plan is dictating zoning.

That's where we are tonight. We are seeking approval to have a use that was previously allowed as a primary use to be a primary use. Again, here's the conundrum is it's really secondary to the overall project in the first place because the site was 9 acres. It was always 9 acres. a portion was going to have the the flex industrial use and the balance was going to have the commercial on the corner which is which is creating a little bit of a conflict in terms of kind of a clean line to a comprehensive plan amendment because it isn't a clean line. It's this somewhat complicated process. Let me address your specific question. I don't know. Uh because there wasn't any uncertainty in my client's mind as to their they always knew that they could develop that site for their intended use. that note in this ODP, which to to Carson's point, and I'm I'm not holding you responsible for that note, but it's an important note because that's what that's what people with entitlements come to rely on is what is on these pages as as is represented by staff. And so there wasn't an urgency at that point to go ahead with the ODP. In fact, I I I'm not even sure that they would have qualified for an ODP because the PDP amendment uh didn't contemplate uh that use at

that point. So, so I I think that might even we we might be in agreement there that the ODP probably wasn't the right place um for that comment to exist. it probably belonged more uh importantly in a PDP u prior to the ODP. But Mr. Peg, back to again your chronology after 2023 comprehensive plan amendment is the ODP and that's where this comment appears. So whether Mr. McConnell is right or whether I'm right, I don't know that it matters because what you're seeing represented here by the staff is that the staff anticipated and fully appreciated the existence of that car wash. The pardon me, not a car wash because you were trying to get rid of uh water. Um the filling station with the convenience retail on that corner.

I'm sorry. I do have another chronology question. What year did Quick Quick Trip buy this lot? 2022. 2022. Okay.

For For what it's this is the for what it's worth category. Um because um there was a conversation between some staff after the um 2019 amendment as to we we just heard about this inline retail versus the um gas station and retail. Here's an email um in between staff and I'm happy to introduce this if people are interested but the staff in corresponding with one another said I don't think we see an inline retail strip building as the catalyst to an industrial development. So as quickly as there is this comment about an inline retail that might happen on the corner. This is 2020 and the staff is suggesting inline retail isn't going to be the catalyst for that corner. So it I mean and now we're six years later just trying to build the gas station that Quick Trip bought the property to build in the first place.

Okay. I'll take one more question or comment and then we're going to get to the public testimony. Uh Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh uh number one, if you'd like to enter that into the record, I'm sorry to take over, but you could hand it to uh the secretary, Miss Garcia, and she can uh make sure that's in the public record. Uh secondarily, uh uh I'm beating a dead horse a little bit, but uh at the on the down zoning, I we we don't really have traditional zoning except because most of it except for in very limited in the original part of the city in our open space. Uh most of our zone what would be zoning in other cities is usually in our land use plans and those are adopted a little differently than some other municipalities. So and and yes when there there was some intentional downzoning to use the vernacular for but it was really for certainty on our water situation because we for a minute we didn't really know that situation and we needed to have that certainty and that's why we were adopting that. I don't know that that was necessarily done to reduce rights uh or anything like that. It was more to make sure that we had certainty for our future water supply. um the you know and we were we were mentioning the other approvals that we gave on this site because I was here in 2019 and in the and for the industrial building ODP PDP amendment as well and I don't recall conditions on those u I do know I just want to point out for the record that the council meeting agenda uh for The comp the 2019 comp plan amendment says recommended city action is a was one hold a public hearing and two pass counselor's bills 18 on first

reading to approve the comp plan amendment for the subject property. Uh this recommendation is based on a finding the land amendment is generally support by the criteria set forth and in section 11521 Westminster municipal code. There are no conditions written on that. There is a statement in the staff memo stating that staff also pro proposed that a multi-tenent retail commercial building be required for the 1.25 acres of the property designated readail commercial. During a PTP submitt, staff is likely to propose a limit for high water uses on the property such as breweries. Finally, with future submitts, staff will propose that a freestanding pad be prohibited. Automobile uses will be limited or potentially limited. Pad users such as gas stations, fast food restaurants do not pro provide the opportunity for a larger amount of employment that is offer often found in multi-tenant retail buildings. Now, I see that as a staff comment. I do not see that as a condition of approval. Uh, and I I don't have the minutes of that meeting as part of our packet, nor do I have uh the motion that was passed by us and approved by city council for the PDP ODP amendment to confirm that. But it doesn't seem like we actually put any uh put any conditions on that use when we have done other land use actions on this property. Um, not that that just see at least based on the evidence I'm seeing is do uh so I don't know if if we have that information uh you know I' I'd like to see it but otherwise it doesn't appear at least that it that conditions were proposed at least in the 2019 amendment.

Yeah. And that would probably make sense because it's a comprehensive plan amendment. It's not an entitlement. I know the applicants use the term entitlement, but you're only entitled when you have that use allowed on a PDP. PDP is your sight specific development plan. It's your entitlement, I should say. I'm sorry. Uh your ODP is your sight specific development plan, but the comp plan gives the council the opportunity to allow certain uses on properties. When the city council approves a preliminary development plan or preliminary development plan amendment adding land uses, they can only add land uses that are allow within that comp plan designation. They're bound by that. They can't choose to add residential uses in a retail commercial land use or vice versa. So the point I think that we were trying to make is that they're seeking entitlement for a gas station. In this case, the first step is to redesate the comp plan because the current comp plan would not allow this as a primary use. They would have to seek the service commercial re I mean the service commercial designation in order to advance a PDP amendment for the council to consider entitling that use. So just to underscore the and I know our system is very different but the comprehensive plan although the code requires mandatory compliance with that it imposes that on the city council and its decisions um you're not entitled and until you have that land use approved on your PDP so the comp plan doesn't entitle land uses

okay I ask u commissioners to hold their comments until after the public testimony has finished. So, at this time, I will open the public testimony and remind everyone to please keep your comments short. Do we have any emails or voicemails on this application? Uh, the emails and voicemails were provided in the packet addendum this afternoon. So, they are in the record. All right. So, we have no voicemails. No voicemails. Okay. In that case, I will open up the hearing to anyone who wishes to testify. Do we have a list?

Yes. Um, I'll go ahead and call up Stephanie Horus Tor Turner. Okay. I'm not a public speaker. I'm just a mom who lives in the neighborhood of Countryside 108 and Oak Street. Let me tell you a little bit about my neighborhood. It is wonderful. We were so fortunate to move there in 2020 um before co and the neighborhood is remarkable. It reminds me of my childhood. Children there play on bikes, go for walks, families all the time. Of course, we have our dog people that are always walking dogs. Now, there's definitely congestion already on 108th in Wadssworth because of the FedEx buildings that have been that have moved there and then the change of Ball Corporation moving moving and the new corporation coming in that's a lot more inoff um people. The other thing that you're going to see in my neighborhood is a lot of high schoolers with the stickers that say new to driving driver's ed and that is only on 104th is their high school. So that is the block the next block over. So I am worried and I'm a mother of a two-year-old. So, keep in mind I'm I'm not worried tomorrow about driving, but I am for the future. That also adding that congestion to the gas station would also cause some issues for drivers that are brand new in the area,

especially with drivers at that constantly use that area to train. Um, the other thing is, uh, you know, 20 jobs to change the face of a neighborhood. It seems pretty low. Uh I know the medium income, yeah, the median income for West Minister is $100,000. So when we're looking at an AGM position at $50,000, is it enough to change what we're what we're doing, how that neighborhood already operates? It's very quiet neighborhood and I will say quiet for being right next to an airport. Um, as all of us who live there enjoy watching those. Um, the other thing that I'd like to point out besides the neighborhood is the changes from 2019 to 2026. First of all, there was about 2% of brand new vehicles sold in Colorado were EVs. That number now is 35% EVs. So our needs have vastly changed since the 2019 and from 2022 where in Colorado it was 10.5% of brand new cars were EVs. So, I would say that our that even though that um all of I won't even attempt to try to name all the different things that were changed for the zoning or not zoning or or planning, but I would say that that's not something quite our neighborhood needs. Um, if you go down to Church

Branch or 100th, which is eight blocks away, you'll find two different gas stations. Now, if you go four blocks up, you'll find another gas station. So, does this neighborhood really need another gas station? Thank you. Thank you. Is there anyone else signed up to speak? No.

Okay. I will ask at this time, is there anyone else who wishes to testify? Seeing that there is no one, I will close the public testimony portion of the hearing and take questions from commissioners. Commissioner Calling.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, there's a lot going on here and it was a it was a confusing staff member memo. So, Mr. Peg, I appreciate you asking a lot of questions. Um but there's a couple things that were in there that you know there's certain um criteria for um comprehensive plan amendment and I thought staff did a good job explaining how it did not meet those. Um there's one in particular that I want you guys to take a look at and it's not it's on page 13 um of the staff memo. It's in the section that says um Westminster municipal code analysis. It's number three. The proposed amendment shall consider the nature and degree of impacts on the neighborhood lands. Individual parcels or groups of parcels shall not be subject to change in land use in such ways that the new designation is substantially inconsistent with the uses of the surrounding area. And then the next paragraph which that's the criteria and the staff says the introduction of service commercial land uses such as a standalone auto service facility at this location is substantially inconsistent with the uses of the surrounding area. Land to support service commercial uses have been set aside near Church Ranch Boulevard and Wadworth Parkway that is keeping it with the comprehensive plan policies to direct service commercial uses in such a way from major intersections and gateways. I think that kind of sums up why they don't want a gas station here. I think it's kind of clear. Um I don't have any problems with Creek Trip. Sounds like a fabulous company. I would like to find someplace else for them to be in Westminster, but I don't think this is the right location for them. Um, and I just want to comment on something that the u Mr. Foster said. He said it was an important note on that plan when they were going through the review process with staff. He said an important note that people come to rely on the note

that said that shall we designate this as a gas station? Now, notes between staff and an applicant during the process are not binding. those have to be on the plans when city council approves them. So, I don't really care that there's a note on a plan that said something like that. It's not relevant. It's not binding. So, I think that that's not even appropriate to consider at this point. Um, I think those are my only comments. Thank you,

Commissioner Morris. I think it's also clear that in the number of times that zoning has been considered for this property, even when intimated, it seems as though they've made it pretty clear that auto uses have never been a primary consideration for this lot over a number of different changes. I find it in I I don't know how we would make that leap now. Commissioner Dud.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to concur with uh both Commissioners Morris and uh calling uh on this matter. I think that the uh that we've taken our eye off the ball a little bit here. Um the the standard to which uh uh which is to be applied to these uh to the facts of these matter uh of this matter is uh uh the Westminster Municipal Code um section 7 or 11-5-21. Um, I I I think that the applicant was over reliant on what the what the comprehensive plan said and not uh focused enough perhaps on on the way to get to the comprehensive plan and that is through the the municipal code analysis in 11-5-21. And as I read through that um that statute, I I come to the same conclusion that I came to a couple of weeks ago on a on a well, not a similar uh but similar in fact uh similar in the case that uh it's the statute that has to be relied on and the standards of the statute have not been met by the applicant. Okay. Um, I'd like to make a quick comment. I think there was some communication in the past between staff and the applicant that indicated that they might be able to locate a fuel station and a convenience store on this property. And

I think that what we've got now is a situation where there's been miscommunication and misunderstanding. And I think the only people that can solve this are the city council. And I and and with that in mind, I say we send this to the city council with a recommendation so that they can make the decision that has been brewing here for many years. And that's my comment. Anyone else? Commissioner Tomichek.

Yes. Um I tend to agree, Chairman. um primarily for two reasons. One is that if you go the the uh in our packet on page what is this uh 29 the there is some discussion of the history of the property and in the 1984 original PDP that eventually lapsed fueling stations as well as other uh standalone automobile uh type properties were allowable and as time has gone by it's become a narrowing of what's allowed on the property from what was allowed back then. And I'm I'm not arguing for one or the other. It's just that that particular corner has had nothing built on it in the 30 odd years that I've lived here. It sort of begs a larger question of is it becoming too narrow a description of what's allowed on the property and what's not that it's never actually going to get developed and the property owners are sort of at a loss given what else is going there. I don't ever want to get to a spot where we're saying, "Well, this is better than nothing." But if there's no one else attempting to develop this property for anything else, we're actually denying the locals in that area a service by telling them that they can't have this for what's ostensibly an administrative problem. So sending it to council makes a lot of sense to me.

Commissioner Colling. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree. I think we need to send this to council. I agree to both of you. I would like to make a motion if I may. Please do. Um I move that the planning commission recommend to the city council denial of the comprehensive plan amendment for the Mandandalay Gardens track 10 lot 2. This recommendation is based on the finding that the comprehensive plan amendment is not supported by the criteria in section 11-5-21 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Do we have a second? We'll second. Commissioner Dunn. Thank you. All right, Greg, we have a question here. Do we do both motions or we do one motion and then a second? One motion at a time.

Okay. And if the first motion passes, then there won't be a second motion. Okay. All right. Is there any further discussion on this? Oh, Vice Chair Carpenter.

Uh, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be voting no on this motion. Uh, I I also live in Countryside. I've lived there since 2009. And actually, believe it or not, the traffic is actually better at Wadsworth in 1008 than it was back back pre2020. Um, just just wanted to throw that out there. But I also love that neighborhood and it's still it's still a problem there. But, you know, I'm I'm not convinced by the staff's uh arguments against it. Uh I I definitely agree that retail services and restaurants have long been desired there. Uh I worked in Westmore for and in right next door to it. Uh right across the street from it, in fact, uh for what, eight years, something like that. And yeah, there's nothing in the area until you unless you drive over the golf course. Uh Westmore has a cafe or drive down to Church Ranch. Um now now up at the Arista area out of the city. Uh but so I so I guess the I don't believe it would be substantially detrimental. I drive by this every day. I mean there's already a giant industrial building with lighting on it. I don't think it's going to cause cause any issues there. Um I don't I I find find the argument under number three uh surprising land to support commercial services that have been set aside near church ranch in Wadssworth that is in keeping with the comprehensive policies to keep services commercial uses away from major intersections. um that is that has much much more traffic backup than 100 A and watts every single day. Um uh although

although good job for putting a lot of service commercial there I use it. Uh you know the I think uh yeah there there was there are a couple other other ones as well. U I guess under one the commercial designation supports retail stores, eating establishments, groceries, and offices. Well, there nobody's going to build an office on one quarter acre parcel of land when there's so many so much vacant office space already. A grocery store, I mean, a quick trip convenience store is probably the closest thing we're going to get to a grocery store there because people can go in there for convenience. they it's actually going to save save gas in time uh time there. So, you know, I guess for just for the record, I I believe it I believe that uh this does I think it fits our managed growth. I think it I agree with the applicants summary in their in their memo and the addendum uh as far as serving the public purpose. The item three, the nature and degree. I think it's I think it would serve the surrounding area well. Uh I think uh number four, you know, you know, they I think they've answered every I think they've answered every single one with a with a proper answer. So, I'm I kind of take the applicants uh analysis uh on this. So, I will I will be voting no on this and hope for a chance for a second motion.

Commissioner Peg, uh yeah, I uh I think I'm going to be voting yes. Um but my I not not for uh uh I should say that my agreements with staff are actually pretty narrow here. Um, I think it's 1,4 and six are the only ones where I don't see the developer side of or the applicant side of this. Um the uh condition number one for uh uh uh excuse me a uh comp plan amendment is that the proposed amendment is consistent with the vision, intent and applicable policies of the comp plan and other adopted plans, policies and guidelines. And a consistent trend in how this uh land has been recently treated by city council is to reduce the uh uh um primacy of service type uses. Um now so with the evidence I have before me today, I think that that one goes against the applicant. Uh however uh that's a question for city council and of course what we're doing today is not approving or denying but recommending approval or denial. Um with what I have before me today based on number one I have to recommend denial. Uh number four I think you could make the case um but I think it needs to be made stronger than it was made tonight. And uh number six, the uh proposed amendment furthers an important public policy including but not limited to a need for affordable housing, protection of historic resources, preservation of open space, or reduction in water demand by virtue of a different land use category. I

don't I don't see it. But there again, this is I think for the applicant to really make their case to city council. uh this including but not limited to right the the the things that follow not limited to really don't look like a gas station. Um but again we're making a recommendation and based on those three things tonight I have to recommend that city council um deny this. Okay. Commissioner calling.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. Sorry. One last thing is I just I want to make sure we all understand and I'm hoping Mr. McD McConnell can clarify. We're not picking and choosing which of these. It's all of these standards must apply. It's it's not like you pick and choose well these ones kind of are we agree with those but those don't. It's like in order to approve a comprehensive plan they need to meet all those criteria. Isn't that correct? for comprehensive plan um amendments, it they have to generally comply with all the criteria together. So um it's for preliminary development plan amendments where they all have to apply which is I think what you're asking for PDP amendments.

Great. Thank you very much, Commissioner Peg.

Uh that raises a question I think for Greg Graham then about what exactly does it mean to generally comply? I'm looking at uh section 11-3-2 of the municipal code. And planners, please jump in if you think I'm stating something that's not correct. um that section subsection B provides for approval criteria. So it ref references the city council but it's the same for the city or for the planning commission. Uh evaluate the plans contents to determine that the following criteria are met. And this goes for uh amendments as well. uh identifies goals consistent with adopted policies. Plan is appropriate for future consultation and reference by the city council, etc., etc., etc. Um, then there's a section on compliance with the plan. So, I' I'd like the planners to point me to the code language if they can. the the standards of uh consideration would be the um 11521 and 115 uh14. Okay, thank you.

Okay, that's what I was looking for. Um, so in 11521, I believe it's subsection B, standards for approval of land use plan amendments. Subsection B reads, in reviewing an application for an amendment to the land use plan, the following criteria shall be considered. Now, I can't tell you exactly what considered means. I can't give you specific legal advice in public. So, you're going to have to figure that out on your own, I'm afraid.

Okay. Well, we don't have to if What's our stomach for an executive session? I don't think it's necessary here. Okay. Since we're only recommending or not recommending.

That's fair. Um Okay. Uh uh um just while we're on this train of thought, um I mostly agree with Commissioner Calling. Yes, we're not picking or choosing. Um um however, I do want to be specific about why I'm denying this. This is on the record. I figure if I'm going to deny this, the applicant deserves to hear why. So, just to clarify, um the motion was to

Did I recommend denial? So, you wouldn't be you would be supporting the motion. Just that's kind of confusing. Just

Okay, last comment from me. uh in the bigger picture uh where are you going to locate a gas station except on one of the main arterials keeping it out of neighborhoods 104th is mostly built out no opportunity there so I think this uh doesn't meet all the criteria and I will let the city council make the final decision but I think this is a very um divisive, not maybe not the right word, but a a hard to decide um application and I think um generally it is not out of character for this region. Okay, if there are no further comments or questions, I will ask the secretary for a roll call vote. If I may.

Sure. Chair Boscher. Um, I just want to make sure everybody understands that the motion is to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan amendment request.

And I'll do um two votes. So the first one will be um to vote on the proposed uh comp plan amendment and the second will be the voting on the we only have one motion and it's only for the first that's that's Oh okay. Got it. All right. Um so we'll go ahead and do the role. Uh Commissioner Calling. Yes. Commissioner Tomichek. No. Commissioner Dunn. Yes. Chair Bosert, no. Vice Chair Carpenter, no. Chair, uh, Commissioner Morris, yes.

Commissioner Peg, I think based on the evidence before me today on uh numbers one and six in particular, I don't this think this meets those requirements, but I think there's a a case to be made for city council. Um and uh good luck and I'm voting um yes to deny or recommend denial.

Okay, so it looks like the motion passes four to three. Do I have my math right? Correct. Okay. So, the city council gets to handle this and um I think we put a lot of good thought into this. Hopefully, they will take that into consideration.

Yeah. I apologize. I don't I did not mean to imply when I said there would be only one vote uh that there would literally be only one vote tonight. I was just referring to the comprehensive plan amendment as far as uh voting to deny or voting to approve. You do still have to go through a vote for the PDP. Um okay. So, even though we've voted to recommend denial of the comprehensive plan, we still have to do a a motion on the PDP. Yes, you do. Okay. Because council, you you are required to make a recommend recommendation to city council on both of these items.

Okay. And they are going to review and vote on both of these items as well. Okay. Commissioner calling. I'd like to make a motion. Okay. I move that the planning commission recommend to the city council to deny the preliminary development plan for the Mandandalay Gardens track 10 lot 2. This recommendation is based on the findings that the preliminary de development plan amendment is not supported by the criteria in section 115-14 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Do we have a second? I'll second.

That was Commissioner Tomachek. Thank you. Any discussion? Commissioner Morris, did you wish to speak? Okay. If there's no further discussion, I will ask the secretary for a roll call vote. Uh, Commissioner Colin, yes. Commissioner Tomichek, no. Commissioner Dunn, yes. Chair Boscher, no. Commissioner Carpenter, no. Commissioner Morris, yes. Oh, yes. This and Commissioner Peg,

yes. So, we again have the motion pass on a 4 to3 vote.

Thank you for your presentation, gentlemen and lady. Okay. At this time, I'll open a public hearing on item 3B, proposed update to the planning commission bylaws discussion. Excuse me, Mr. Mr. Chair Roert. Um, there is not a a public hearing on this item. This is just a discussion item. Okay. This is discussion. I was going to announce that we wouldn't be taking any public testimony, but um with that clarification in mind, who is making the presentation tonight?

Well, I thought uh Miss Garcia was going to start us off. She's giving me the hairy eyeball right now. Staff would like to have a discussion on amending the bylaws. Um, and I'll turn it over to Greg Graham to bring up the suggested changes. Thank you.

So, um, staff has a couple of suggested changes to the bylaws and you're you're welcome to um, suggest others if you would like. The two main changes we're looking at are um one voting on the minutes and two uh the uh the time period giving uh speakers to speak.

So I'll start with the time period first. Um last year the city council reduced its public comment and its public testimony time to three minutes from five minutes. Um, the reason we suggest this is only because in the instance where you might have 20 people or so, um, it's hard for everybody to get to speak. Um, and most people can say what they need to say within 3 minutes. That's absolutely up to the commission. Um, I I get paid to be here regardless. I don't get paid anymore to be here longer, but I I still get paid to be here. I get the same.

Is there a difference between public testimony and public comment? Absolutely. Okay. So, public comment is visitors and public testimony is So,

we don't really have public comment at the planning commission because the only time the public um speaks at planning commission is during a public hearing and that's testimony. So, if you have a hearing, you're getting testimony. Um at city council, you get general public comment. It might be on on an item or various items on the uh agenda that evening, but there's not a specific public comment or public testimony uh period for most of what the city council uh approves. It's only those usually land use hearings and occasionally there are other items that get a public hearing at the city council and when it's a hearing it's testimony. So they reduced the originally city council reduced just the public comment time to three minutes per person and eventually they changed the public testimony also to three minutes per person. Again that's entirely up to the commission. Um and there's what we will do after we receive your input tonight is we'll go back and make changes or not make changes based on your guidance. Um so that's that's there's that one. the um issue with voting on the minutes. Um, interestingly, there is a provision in the municipal code that says if a commissioner or or board member was not present at the meeting uh during which you know or for which the meeting the minutes uh that are that is before that are minutes are before the commission um are being voted on. that member may request to be excused from voting legally. Um, you can't vote on minutes if you weren't present at the meeting

because you don't know what was said unless you actually watched the meeting. Um, and I'm guessing most of the time if you're not at the meeting, you're not watching the meeting. Um, there are there are a couple nuances to that. Um, for example, when we have um our alternate members here sitting sitting in the audience, if if they're if they're paying attention watching what's going on, there's an argument you could make that they were here for the entire meeting. On the other hand, if they're in the audience, they're not asking questions, they're not speaking, they're not voting. So, you could kind of go either way. Um, I would tell you my my preference would be to not have the alternates vote, um, in in the instance where we have a a commissioner or two missing, you know, from the meeting at which approval of the minutes from a prior meeting or is is taking place. I don't know if hopefully that makes sense. So, we really should not if you if you didn't attend the meeting um as a commissioner, you should not be voting on the minutes. Um the one concern that we have with that is the way the bylaws read is that um everything that the commission votes on, everything um has to be by majority of vote of those present. Okay? So, if you had two or three people, and we've had we've had meetings where we only had four uh members, and let's say two of those members weren't at the next meeting, but there was still enough for a quorum at the next meeting, well, you couldn't get uh you couldn't get a vote one way or the other on the minutes um because you

would only have say three three members of the commission that were actually at that meeting at the next meeting voting on those minutes. Um so my suggestion there are two options there. One would be to postpone the minutes of that meeting to the next to the next session to the next meeting which I think makes the most sense. The other one would be to have it have the meeting uh meeting minutes voted on by a majority of those commissioners who are in attendance that were in attendance at that meeting. I think that's clunky and there are times when you could literally get, you know, a 2 to1 vote, which just doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. I know that I know how controversial um voting on our minutes is. Um it's all sorts of arguments and and uh that kind of thing. So um

yes, Commissioner Dunn. Uh if if uh you say Greg, if someone has watched the meeting, if they weren't at the meeting, go ahead and turn on your mic. Oh, okay. It's still on. We're still being broadcast. Oh, sorry about that. Uh okay. If if someone has has watched the minutes, I mean the meeting, you know, on YouTube and so forth, um then you say they might have a right or whatever to to vote on the minutes.

Um that would be the commission's decision. Um I I would not be personally in favor of that um just because they didn't take take part in that discussion. It's different when you when you take part in the discussion. Additionally, um you know, most of the time when um when a commissioner or a board member or a council member wants to change the minutes, it's because it's something they said that they want to clarify. And that doesn't really work very well if if you're a commissioner and you or a member of whatever board or commissioner council uh and you've watched you've watched the uh the meeting on on YouTube or whatever and then you come back and you say, "Oh, wait, wait, no. Commissioner Carpenter did not say that. What he said was and he's not and if if he he's not there to well or to to clarify what he thought he said, then that that gets a little clunky and I I would not recommend that, but that's an option you have."

What about if someone has read the minutes? What if someone excuse me what if someone has read the minutes um that was not at the meeting or that really wouldn't help because you can all read the minutes. Anybody who was not at the last meeting can read the minutes. You still don't know if those minutes are accurate unless you were watching on watching on TV on Yeah. or on your phone or your tablet or your smart goggles or whatever. I'm sorry. I think Commissioner Peg had a question.

Yeah, I want to make a quick comment. Um, I agree with Greg that we should not allow someone who was not in attendance to vote. But I do think we should allow any commissioner that was in attendance, even if they're in the audience, should be allowed to vote on the minutes because they we don't know if they paid attention or not, but most likely they did. So, I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt. So, okay, Commissioner Peg.

Uh, sure. So, um, while I when I am unable to attend, I do watch the recordings of these. Um, I do agree that this makes the record much cleaner. Um, so I I agree with your general uh uh uh advice here. Um, what seems to be missing from what's written in the packet here was what you said about people wanting to change their comments. We really should have more clarity around that. That's actually I think that does bring up a big issue, right? Um um folks should be able to clarify their comments in the minutes. Um and if they are not present and some other commissioner attempts to clarify their comments, that is messy. Uh why is that only coming up now? Why isn't that in the packet? That seems like the bigger issue here. Well, um I think I think part of that is there's just sort of an assumption that you kind of understand what the minutes are and and that you know when you're voting for and and that I'm not I'm not saying it's a fair assumption, but there's I think there's an assumption that um when you're voting for the minutes, you're deciding whether whether they're accurate or not. And that's that's really what it comes down to. And and I want to make sure that that everybody understands if I say clarify. I mean I don't mean well I don't mean that you would say for example, oh I know I said that but that's not what I meant.

That's not what you can clarify. You it has to be an actual mistake in the transcription. Um I'm not I'm looking at Ronnie not because she would make mistakes but because she's never made a mistake. Uh not that I know of. Uh but uh right so it's it's it's the things that you actually say and there are times when you know and I've seen this happen um when when the transcription um it I totally blanked on the word but it assigns um some comment or some question to the wrong member

right and that's an opportunity to that's another opportunity oh wait that was that was not it was Not Commissioner Carpenter, it was Commissioner Tomichek who said that. Um or it was Commissioner Calling, but she lowered her voice a lot. Uh you know, something like that. She had a bad cold. And um so that's that's really what I mean when you when I'm talking about clarifying your comments. Um you you don't actually get to go back and say, "Well, what I was thinking was what I really meant was it's it's the actual words that you say." So that's that's what I'm talking about. Okay. Vice Chair Carpenter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yeah, I I've seen well people uh being mistaken for me aside, uh I think I've seen maybe one minutes correction in my career on the planning commission, uh you know, when you know, for things like minor typos or you when we read the minutes, if we see something, we could always email Ronnie. She can update it, check the record, and make sure that that's happened. So it doesn't it's not like we're just waiting until meeting night and be like, "Oh, let's you know, let's let's change this on the fly." There's, you know, we do have four or five days to kind of get our act together and and read it and check those out. So, um, so I don't think that's that's a problem. Uh, I think I I don't agree agree with the idea of being able to watch the YouTube video and vote on the minutes. Um I'm also one who watches them when I'm gone. Apparently we're the two that don't have lives. But uh the uh uh but anyhow uh but there are times when it is official like if we have a continued meeting you know we do need to be watching the YouTube videos so in you know especially for regular members so we can be ready to take over or the alternates in case they have to step in. So that is very important uh if you have an absence and there's a continuation but that's those are very very rare. Um I think I think the idea of not voting on minute if you weren't here makes sense if I think if uh the alternates were voting at the dis I think that makes sense and if especially if say alternates were here and but then the majority isn't there I think a simple voice vote yay from the audience and so we have that other section in the bylaws where we're not allowed to have our alternate situp here anymore. more,

which honestly would be something I would actually like to see change, but I believe there's a a Westminster municipal code that actually forces that to occur that we discovered uh within the last several years.

So, uh so we can't really change those bylaws, but I would be in favor of that. But I do think uh I do think the idea of you know if they're if we have a majority of people here at the following meeting who were at the previous meeting we should we should let them vote if they're alternates or regular because they're not considering the business that then I think they would still be in in uh in compliance with the Westminster municipal code. So uh that's kind of how I'd like to handle it. And yes, if if in on those rare occasions where we don't have a majority of people who were at the previous meeting then or then we a majority of the people present who were at the previous meeting then yes we should vote just continue vote to continue the minutes to the next meeting. But that's kind of my thought of how we should approach it.

Commissioner Morris as your alternate I feel personally attacked. Um, but I would I would also like to say that um I when I'm here, I want to be paying attention and prepared um and in including included in the minutes from the previous meeting if I am in the audience or whichever. Um I enjoy it and I take great pride in being here. So either way, I'll go with it. But Commissioner Collie,

I have two comments. Um the first one is the process for voting on minutes. We don't do it as a roll call. And there's been many times that I wasn't participating in the hearing or wasn't here. So I just don't vote. I just don't say anything. I don't light my light up. I just don't say anything. I always thought that's how you wanted us to do it. But maybe it makes more sense to do a roll call vote so that you can say not present. So you know that. Um, and the second thing is, um, changes to minutes. I knew we used to be able to like email and let them know that something wasn't right, but is it better just to do it at the hearing so that everybody can hear it and agree with it? So, I want to understand that process. Um, I know it delays approval because you have to talk about it. She has to go back and rewrite it. We all have to review it again and then we vote on it. But which is the best way to do it?

I I don't think there is a best way to do it from a legal perspective. Um, other than from so legally, I think you could do it either way. Um, and and as you know, as long as an individual is saying, "Hey, can you check this out again because I'm pretty sure I said whatever." Um, and then assuming that, you know, they whoever's transcribing the minutes, transcribing the recording, um, agrees with you, then great. Um, then they can change it before the minutes. Well, I guess it wouldn't be before the minutes go out and then they would send it out again before the hearing. So, they would have to do that. Then people wouldn't have as much time to read it.

Yeah. So, so you'd be And I guess that would be now that I'm thinking out loud about it, that would be the problem with that um with that procedure. Um because you you get the minutes for review. if you don't happen to look at them right away. I don't know how I mean there was a comment about being four or five days ahead of of the meeting. Um you know, you might have minutes going out two or three times before a meeting

um to approve them as opposed to just doing it all, you know, at the meeting. And the problem with that, of course, is if you were attending that meeting, but you weren't at the next meeting and the and there were enough members to vote, then you won't necessarily get your um your comments in. Although, there's always an although, right? Um although, if you knew if you knew you weren't going to make the meeting, um you could one of the things you could do is email staff and say, "Hey, I can you bring this up in the meeting? I'd like to get this changed. We don't have a we don't really have a policy or process for that. Um but I could imagine um you know the the chair actually introducing and and if and if the voting members of the commission didn't have a problem with that change could that could be an amendment to the m minutes at at the dis. So that would be a good that would that would be a good thing to add to our bylaws that process.

Well, I think the recording is the final say. So what you would do is contact the secretary and ask her to check the recording to be sure it's accurate. All of the other things we're talking about here would be very cumbersome and time consuming. So, I think really the best way to do it would be to contact the secretary, have her check the recording, and if necessary, bring a new set of transcribed minutes to the meeting. It's it's a simple solution. We have them here tonight anyway, so it wouldn't be that hard. So, oh, I see we have a lot of questions. Um, Larry.

Um, so here's a policy proposal then. Um, Ronnie gets our materials to us for Tuesday on what? Thursday, Friday, usually

on Thursday. So, let's have a let's have a let's have a deadline set for us uh to review and comment you know to you on any of the any discrepancy that we might find in the minutes uh so that by the time you know meeting time comes say maybe have a deadline of you know Monday noon or something and then and then uh um uh so by the time the meeting comes comes anyone who wants to urge who who thinks there should be a correction in the minutes can will have let you know by that time. So by the meeting everything's cool. If a person wasn't there the previous meeting, you know, they're not going to be voting on that on that particular uh on that particular night on on those particular minutes. I think I might amend that a bit and say that it's got to be by say 10 o'clock on Tuesday morning so that the minutes can go out as part of our amendment package or addendum package so that we have time to review it before that addendum package is due at noon on Tuesday. So I would say we would we should just be consistent with that. And of course you could of course as a commissioner you could always bring bring something up at the dis as well but uh I think I think if we had a

you know I think if we just had kept the kept it consistent for everybody there's certainly enough time for her to make those amendments I would assert yeah and if it's so big that she doesn't have time to do it it really needs to come to the dis anyway. Yes exactly okay especially on Tuesday. Do we need to give you a recommendation tonight as to what we'd seen? We we would like Yeah, we would like a recommendation. I think what was just discussed here would be the first recommendation that we have the four or five days, four days from the time we receive the packet until noon on Tuesday to make changes to the minutes.

Yeah. And I do on uh Tuesdays by noon um that's the like any public comment cut off. Okay. So after 12 that's when I start working on the addendum. Let's keep that as our and uh what was the other proposal on local vote. Okay. Actually that makes sense as well because then a commissioner can say abstain or whatever they want and they can offer amendments during the that process. Right. Good point. Okay.

Yeah. That's that seems uh reasonable. I guess such it's going to add 30 seconds to our meeting by saying everybody's names but then you won't but we'll stop having uh chair bosard asking if it's a roll call vote. So right so we will incorporate that and the second suggestion was three minutes for speak actually chair bosard if I could get a little bit more clarity on um I I can't take notes.

Do we need a motion? Is that what you're asking for? No. Um clarity on who's voting and and and when. So it it sounds like um there's a consensus among the commission that if a an alternate or both alternates were at um a meeting and then the following meeting they're sitting in the audience, one or both of them, they would also get to speak up and vote on the minutes. I agree. I think that's a good change. Okay. As was there any nuance to that that we that got missed in that?

As long as Go ahead. Doesn't that run a foul of um um city ordinance which which requires that alternates who will not be voting do not participate in the meeting?

I think that's more for the hearing itself. For example, if we were to have a study session, um a work session, um say it's the UDC, it would be best if everybody was involved and everybody could ask questions. to me the alternate um especially for you know planning commission SPLB um a couple of the other boards um that's really what it's really the public hearings that are critical when it comes to that. So not more than seven uh members are participating in the public hearing and making comments and voting and asking questions. Um so I can go back and look at the look at the municipal code but um there is specific language in the code that alternates don't participate when there are enough uh regular members. But I don't think that's I don't think that this situation was really considered. So

yeah, if I may, the under our bylaws, it says alternate members of the commission shall attend commission meetings and shall have all the rights and powers of regular members except that altered members shall not vote or otherwise participate in a matter before the commission unless fewer than all regular members are in attendance at the meeting. So I guess that I guess the question is is are minutes a matter before the commission in in that regard and I guess that would be uh that would that would be between you and the Westminster municipal code. I'll have a chat with the code privately.

You know a workaround on that would be that they wouldn't vote but that they would maybe be called upon to say we're getting ready to vote on minutes since you participated. Is there any additions or changes you would like to um make noteworthy of the minutes? So you can give them an opportunity to speak. They may say, "Well, it was all wrong. It was all messed up. It's not right. I wouldn't vote on this." Or something like that. Or they could just say, "No, I agree with everything." And then they're not actually voting. They're getting you're giving them comment. Um, yeah, I think that that would be an option. Um, so we would just ask them if they have comments on the minutes. Sure. before we make the vote.

And that also leads to the question of, you know, in the unlikely event that uh well, I guess they'd be participating anyway. I was thinking if Well, not necessarily. Um thinking in a in a situation where we had a very we only had four commissioners at the prior meeting and two of them were alternates and then you'd only have, you know, say two commissioners at the meeting that could vote on the on the minutes from or at the next meeting that could vote on the minutes from that prior meeting. In that instance, um there's really no way to fix that without having the alternates vote.

Yeah. What is the minimum required for quorum? Is it four? It's four. Okay. All right. Well, so we may not be able to finalize that question right now. We can um we can work on some language for a couple different scenarios and bring that to you. Chair, I do have another comment. Uh I don't think we should turn the minutes into yet another testimony because that's what that would be, right? Having someone answer questions about

whether they agree with the minutes is essentially more testimony. It's it's a vote on the minutes. Uh it's a redundant part of the record. And I don't mean to say that it is not valuable, but merely that it it you know it it is backed by the meeting recording. Mhm. Um so having additional testimony on it is just seems like a waste of time. Yes. Unless it does seem cumbersome. I was just going to say unless the commissioner actually wanted to change something. Yeah.

Okay. All right. So on the question of how long testimony can go on, does anyone have any strong feelings either way? Vice Chair Carpenter.

Yeah. Uh I I think honestly I I understand why council did it because they have time limits on their meetings and they're and they get a lot of public comment. So their public hearings often don't start till after 9:00. Uh, I think we I think we're a place that the public can come and speak and you know, unless until we run into an actual need to change it, I think giving five minutes is fine. Um, the woman who spoke earlier on tonight's public hearing took over three in less than five minutes

and she was pretty succinct. I mean, it wasn't she wasn't repeating information hemming and hawing. So, I I we we always have the right to limit and you know, if we do have if we do have people lined out the door, we could all we always have the right to say, okay, well, we're only going to take three minutes of testimony on this specific item, and we can always vote at that time if there is a reason to do so. But I think in general, five minutes is perfect. Commissioner Tomichek,

I tend to agree. I've been to more planning commission meetings than I care to say in the last six months for various reasons. And the trend is actually to go to five minutes, not away from it. Okay, I agree. I think that giving people an opportunity to vent a little bit is important, and that's what we're here for. One of the most important things we do is just listen. So, can we on the fly change it to three minutes if we see there's 300 people out there and we say, "Hey, tonight we're only going to do three minutes." I don't think Can we do that on the fly?

The um chair has the authority to limit testimony and I'm going to get the language here. Um if it tends to be repetitive, cumulative, speculative, or irrelevant, um cuts out most of what I'd have to say.

Me, too. Um, yeah, and I'm not seeing a specific and there may be something in the there may be something in the code. Um, although it wouldn't necessar it wouldn't make sense to have this language in the bylaws if if there's other language in the code. Um, but I don't remember seeing that specifically that the that the chair can limit um limit test the length of individuals testimony. Um, if you happen to see it, point it out to me. Under I public hearings, it says I subsection two, public testimony shall be limited to five minutes per person on a given agenda item except when modified by a majority vote.

Okay. And then and then the chair may limit testimony that's repetitive, cumulative, speculative or irrelevant. Good. I was just looking at that last sentence. Thank you. So that covers everything I think. Okay. So, I guess we will keep the five minutes and have that clause in our back pocket if we need it.

Uh, chair, I did want to comment that uh I agree with shortening it to three minutes. Um, tonight's uh I believe tonight's public comment was 3 minutes and 15 seconds. I was watching the clock because this was on the agenda. Um, you know, and I thought it was a good comment. Um, people do occasionally go over their five minutes as well. We usually don't shut them down immediately. People will go over their three minutes. We probably won't shut them down immediately. Um I think most people have said what they need to say after 3 minutes. And if they I do read the packets. Some folks have really complicated thoughts that they put in emails. Uh that is the appropriate place for that. Well, we've got the option to change it to three by a majority vote. So, we we've already got several options. I don't know that we need to shorten it right now.

I think that if it's shorter by default, it uh uh uh so for example, the common reason for shortening it is because a lot of people show up to testify. uh often times when a lot of people have shown up to testify uh it's because the hearing is contentious. And so by shortening that I I worry that you open yourself up to uh uh mistaken claims of bias for example. Um whereas if the default is 3 minutes then there is no question then that this is this is how we do it. Okay. Um, do we need to have a consensus tonight?

I don't I'm not sure we're going to reach one on this. Yeah, I I do want to make one more comment. Um, and it just flew out of my head. Um, oh, yes. the problem with extending. So if you have a three-minute clock and um you want to let people continue, I think that actually is more likely to raise questions of of bias um

honestly because unless you say unless you don't cut anybody off at any time ever um then it kind of makes the three minute clock meaningless. So the purpose of the clock is on and I know people do go over by a few seconds sometimes um sometimes by a little bit more but we shouldn't be allowing that. Um we should be very very solid on once your time is up you are done speaking for everybody. So I would, you know, I I'm not going to suggest what I would do, but I would I would say that we if you know if it's five minute clock or three minute clock or a one minute clock, we have to stick to that time frame. I will say I did get yelled at once by uh somebody when I cut them off at 5 minutes and 0 seconds when I was chairing. So um I Mr. Chair, I would recommend we just maybe get a raise of hands on the consensus to see if we have consensus or not and then and then move on.

Okay. A show of hands. Who thinks five minutes is appropriate? Oh goodness. Okay. Okay. I think we're going to go with that. As you say, we can we've got the option to change it. So, okay. Okay. Is there any any further discussion on these items? All right. Is there any old business that we need to address? All right. In that case, um can you confirm the next meeting is the 26th of May? Yes. Uh 26th of May.

Okay. This meeting is hereby adjourned at 9:02 p.m. Thank you everyone.

Well, that took longer than