Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

you So, you Thank you. Thank you.

26 2026 meeting of the city of Westminster Planning Commission If you plan to speak tonight, please consider signing up in the back of the room. There's a sign-up sheet on the table At this time I'd last for a roll call Commissioners Commissioner Kinnear present Commissioner Toma check excused Commissioner done here. I

Chair Bosher.

Here.

Vice Chair Carpenter.

Here.

Commissioner Jung.

Present.

Commissioner Pegg.

Here.

Commissioner Colling.

Excused.

Commissioner Morris. Here.

Okay, we have a quorum and Commissioner Morris will be voting tonight. We have no other alternates here tonight, so everyone at the dais will be voting. At this time, I'd like a consideration or a motion to approve the minutes of the preceding meeting. That would be the April 28th, 2026 meeting. And these are corrected minutes. Do we have a motion? I'll do a roll call vote. right we need a motion first does anyone brave vice chair carpenter thank you mr chairman i move that we approve the meeting minutes from the previous meeting as amended and do we have a second or do we even need one i'll second that thank you all right can we get a roll call on the meeting minutes uh commissioner kinnear abstain commissioner dunn yes chair bosher yes vice chair carpenter yes commissioner jean abstain commissioner peg yes commissioner morris yes okay the motion passes so the minutes are approved so i would like to open the public hearing At this time, we have three items on tonight's agenda. Item 3A, public hearing and consideration of the ODP for the Academy of Charter Schools athletic field. Item 3B, public hearing and recommendation for an additional development plan for pros, upends filing number three, block one, track A, and block three. And 3C, proposed updates to the planning commission bylaws.

Commissioner Boshart, may I speak?

Yes.

For item 3A, I'd like to make a statement. I have a niece and nephew that attends the Academy Charter. I can remain impartial and will vote only on the facts that are presented here.

Thank you. Okay, it looks like the city has a presentation from Mr. Harlow.

Yes, thank you. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Trevor Harlow, senior planner with the city's planning division, here tonight to present the Academy of Charter Schools athletic field official development plan amendment for your consideration. As part of bringing this project before you, a staff agenda memo has been created and tonight's public hearing has been properly noticed. The agenda memo, its associated attachments, tonight's PowerPoint presentation, the mailed notices, and the posted notices are hereby entered into the public record. The notices of the public hearing were mailed to over 400 property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the site under consideration tonight. Four public notification signs were posted on the subject property, and the city has also posted the hearing date and time on its website. The project site is located within the Academy of Charter Schools subdivision, located at 11800 Lowell Boulevard. The property is located within a PUD zoning district. And as you can see from the vicinity map on the screen, the site is situated within an established residential neighborhood, which is relevant context for the neighborhood concerns that I will speak to shortly. Here is the proposed site plan associated with the official development plan or ODP amendment. The applicant is proposing a series of upgrades to the existing athletic field on the property. As outlined here, the proposed site upgrades include new turf and irrigation systems, improved landscaping and fencing, new bleachers, a press box and concession area, and a restroom facility, as well as added sidewalks and appropriate grading improvements. The applicant also has a presentation tonight, so I'll save some more details about the site plan and proposed updates for them. And now for some background information, I wanted to provide some context to you all for how this application came before you tonight. Given this isn't a typical item you would review or normally see, the applicant originally applied for an ODP amendment to upgrade the athletic field has just shown. And this request met all the standards for an administrative approval, meaning it would be ordinarily be decided at the staff level without coming before planning commission like most of the ODP amendments we see. However, after the required project mailer was sent out to surrounding property owners and tenants following the first round of review per our regulations, significant resident concern was expressed regarding this project. So given the volume and nature of that concern, the City Manager's Office decided to elevate the decision on this application to the Planning Commission. So the residents would have a formal public hearing opportunity to share their feedback. And that is why we are here tonight. So I hope that provides some clarity on this item before you tonight. All right. Moving on, the standards governing this application are found in section 11.5.15 of the Westminster Municipal Code. That section provides 17 criteria that need to be considered when the city evaluates an ODP amendment. After reviewing the application materials and the proposed improvements, staff did find that the application has met all 17 of those criteria. The proposal is consistent with the intent of the PUD zoning district and complies with applicable development standards. And of course, staff's full analysis of each criteria is contained within the agenda memo provided to you for your reference. And now I also wanted to note that in addition to this being elevated, to its approval being elevated from the staff level to Planning Commission, the applicant was also required to hold a project meeting with the neighborhood. This occurred on Thursday, April 9th at the Academy of Charter Schools and was attended by over 40 residents. The primary concerns raised by these residents include but are not limited to the following. Increased traffic and activity in the area due to the upgraded field, especially given the high level of traffic already experienced there. Concern for potential impacts on surrounding property values, issues with the proposed lighting and sound systems to be added to the site. A general concern regarding the lack of communication on this project between the Academy and the surrounding neighborhood. and also a desire to see improved fencing and landscaping to better buffer to the adjacent properties. And I did also want to note with that last one, that item did have multiple residents did bring that up regarding the fencing on the property and while the currently proposed fencing which is just a normal chain link with some vinyl wrap, does meet standards and fits within the character that you would see at an athletic field, staff would support the Academy upgrading the proposed chain link fence to provide a greater aesthetic element to that highly visible area there along Lowell Boulevard. So I just wanted to include that extra bit because that was like significant conversation during that neighborhood meeting. And given all these items, staff has taken all these concerns into account in our review of the application and the applicant has addressed these concerns as well where applicable and able. And again, I will defer to them in their presentation to discuss these items more thoroughly and talk about how they're addressing those concerns with the neighborhood. All right. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and approve the official development plan amendment for the Academy of Charter Schools athletic field. Staff find that the application satisfies all applicable approval criteria and that the proposed improvements represent a reasonable upgrade to an existing facility within an established PUD zoning district. Approval of this application will support the following city strategic plan priorities. Strategic priority, connected and inclusive community. Foster a sense of connection, of connection and engagement through clear communication and accessible opportunities for all Westminster community members, and strategic plan healthy and safe, invest in innovative and collaborative approaches to services that support physical and mental well-being, enhance public safety, protect the environment, and strengthen community beautification. The improvement of community athletic fields supports civic engagement and provides shared public amenity that can benefit the broader Westminster community. This concludes staff's presentation and I appreciate your attention this evening. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have. And as I did mention, the applicant is also with us tonight and will now give their presentation after which they will also be available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, if we can have the applicant's presentation now.

Do I need to turn this on? Is it already on? I'm not sure.

I think it is.

You can hear me? Okay. Good evening, commissioners. Thank you for the opportunity to present on our proposed athletics project. My name is Brent Reckman. I am the executive director at the Academy of Charter Schools. I'm gonna move through a few slides here and share a little bit more detail about our intended project. And as Mr. Harlow said, I'm happy to answer any questions you have after that. So just a quick information about our school. The Academy of Charter Schools was founded in 1994. We serve students in pre-K through 12th grade across two different campuses here in Westminster. We've got about 1900 students across those two campuses. And we are proud to hold a green performance rating, the highest rating you can receive from the Colorado Department of Education, which we've held for many years running. To add a little bit of detail to what you already heard, the project that we are proposing is an upgrade to our current athletic field. We want to transition from natural grass to artificial turf that will give our athletes a lot more opportunities to play through the weather, through multiple seasons. We want to add bleachers and a press box that will give them a better game playing experience and create more opportunities for our students and families to attend home games on our school property. Currently, we have to host quite a few of our home games at other sites because we don't have the facilities to do that on our school grounds, which makes it a little bit harder for our students and families to attend and cheer on their classmates. We also need to replace an aging scoreboard. We are required by code to add restrooms to go along with the additional seating. We'd like to add lights and a PA system for the same reasons so we can extend the playable days and hours across more of the school year and host a higher quality game environment for our student athletes. We're also talking about upgrading our bullpen and batting cages for adjacent baseball field next to the football and soccer field. You already saw a photo, an image of the site plan. So I don't need to dig into this anymore. To jump into some of the concerns that were raised by our neighbors in our community meeting, a big one was about traffic. We hear that loud and clear. It's something that we take really seriously just in our normal morning drop off and afternoon pickup procedures. We've spent some time both thinking about our own procedures and how they would apply during these game contexts and also going through some of the feedback that we got from our neighbors during that public meeting. We have a typical game attendance expected of 40 to 50 fans. Our school, as I said, at that campus is close to 400. So that game attendance is quite a bit lower than our normal school attendance. So we think if we can intentionally apply a lot of the protocols we put into our morning drop off and afternoon pickup procedures that we should be able to handle a typical gain attendance of 40 to 50 fans. We do expect sometimes a more significant attendance, uh, homecoming football games, senior night events, those kinds of things based on when we've hosted senior night events at our indoor facilities for boys and girls basketball, we think that could reach as much as two or 300 fans. We, again, are confident in our ability to handle that capacity as long as we plan ahead for it. We have a close relationship with the Westminster Police Department We have a school resource officer assigned by the Westminster Police who is dedicated to our school, is often there to help out with some of those bigger events and manage not just crowd control, but also traffic flow and those sorts of things. She's also a great connection for us with the police department at large to get input on best practices for managing traffic flow, et cetera. As far as parking goes, when we're finished with the proposed project, we'll add some additional about 50 additional parking spaces and we should have about 350 paved marked spots on our campus, which we believe should be plenty to handle those bigger events of two to 300 fans. We do recognize from the conversations we've had with our neighbors that it's not just about cars coming in and out. It's also about foot traffic after the games, people hanging out nearby after the games, maybe leaving trash, maybe making noise as they walk down the sidewalks, those kinds of things. And so we definitely have lots of thoughts about how we can manage that, move people on after the games. Again, using our relationships with the Westminster Police Department and some of the regular protocols and procedures with our school admin just applied to evening and game context to make sure that we're moving our student and family community on in a prompt way once games end. Some of the additional feedback was around time of use. Understandably, our closest neighbors are concerned about practices and games extending well into the evening, the impact of the PA system, of lights, et cetera. So we've been really thoughtful about how the schedule will come together. The Colorado High School Athletics and Activities Association requires us to have all student athlete events over by 10 p.m. And we're committing to creating our game schedules with the goal of finishing closer to 9 p.m. Just to be respectful of our neighborhood and finish up in a timely manner. We expect in a typical school year for there to be somewhere in the ballpark of 25 home games during the fall sports season and somewhere in the ballpark of 15 home games in the spring sports season. So 40-ish home games total per year. Many of those games overlap. If you can picture junior varsity and varsity games often being scheduled on the same day, we will have fewer than 40 days per year where we are actually hosting games. And it's really only on Friday evenings with home football games that things would extend as late as nine o'clock or maybe a little after. And in that case, we're talking about maybe four or five home games per year. We spent some time in that public meeting talking about the impact of lighting on our closest neighbors. We've had a photometric survey done. We feel pretty confident given current lighting technology that we can set up a lighting system that's designed not to overflow past school boundaries. We've even took some additional steps to visit nearby schools with similar lighting designs and just double check and make sure that what we're expecting to be the case is actually reflected in current practice. The photos you see up here are photos from Stanley Lake High School, not too far from here, which also has homes very close to the field. You can see some photos of some of those nearest houses there and the difference between the level of light on the field versus turned 180 degrees towards the level of light just 20 feet or so off of the field. Sound is another important one. One important adjustment that we've made following our community meeting and some of the concerns we heard around noise levels was to shift our plan from just having a PA system with speakers mounted on the press box facing west towards the neighborhood, instead investing some additional money in the sound budget to have lines buried underneath the field and going across to the light poles that are on the west side of the field so we can have our speakers pointing east away from the houses and make sure that we are directing noise as conscientiously as possible. The last thing I wanna mention before I pause for any questions that you all might have is we've continued our conversations with the community. Personally, I've gotten to know the HOA president since that community meeting. We have followed up more than once since then via email, phone, and even an in-person meeting. we have put together some additional plans for how to communicate better moving forward. That includes things like adding the HOA email to our regular school communications email list. So the HOA is getting regular information just like our school families do about school events and happenings. and they're aware of when things might be happening on that field. Another example is putting together a feedback system using a QR code that we can post around the proposed athletic field that would give the neighbors a really easy way to snap that QR code, fill out two or three question feedback form and communicate with us directly anytime that maybe there are fans after a game leaving litter that we need to go pick up, or maybe the sound system was a little bit too loud that afternoon. And that's helpful for us to know, especially in the early days as we're calibrating the system. So we know that we need to reset the settings moving forward to keep it below a certain level, so on and so forth. I think that covers everything that I wanted to share with you all tonight. So I'll pause there and see if anybody has any questions for me.

Thank you. Any questions from commissioners? Vice Chair Carpenter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a question. I understand the sporting events are going to end 9, 9.30, probably for a football game. But how long after the end of your sporting events do you turn off the overhead lights?

That is the simplest method of crowd control. When you want people to leave, you turn off the lights. So yeah, I think the intention would be to shut them off within 10 to 15 minutes of any game ending. give people enough time to clear out the field, get out of the stands safely, but make sure that they're not encouraged to linger.

Okay, that makes sense. And not really a land use thing, but do you have a marching band by any chance that would be making noise?

We do not have a marching band now. Or a band or anything? We have a school wind ensemble that shows up to a small number of events like our homecoming game and sits in the bleachers and we'll play some pep songs during the game sitting in the bleachers with their classmates. Maybe two or three games a season kind of thing.

Okay, great. Thank you.

Commissioner Kinnear? Thank you. I just want to make sure I understand. Currently there are no lights or speakers on the field or facility? That's correct. Okay. So there are no like Friday night late football games later in the season when it gets too dark?

home games we don't host football home games right now we play those games at adams 12 five star stadium for the most part which is part of our desire to build a better facility on our campus to make it easier for our community to attend those games great thanks any other questions uh commissioner dunn yes uh thank you i'm uh i

I was reading over some of the emails in response that we got to this and one of the problems I see repeatedly is parking. And I noticed according to your plan that you will have almost 400 parking spaces um will that will that uh take care of anybody who needs to drive there uh including away fans visiting fans things of that nature

Yeah, so as I mentioned, our best estimate is for our biggest few sporting events of the year, we might end up with a few hundred fans and we should have enough marked parking spots on our property to handle that. I think what we need to be ready to anticipate isn't filling up parking spots on our lot. It's people choosing to park along the street or in the neighborhood because that feels closer, a shorter walk to the field. than maybe being in the last parking spot at the far end of the lot on the other side of the school. So that is an example of some of the conversations we've already had with our school resource officer and how we might set up for those big events. intentional traffic direction so that we can make sure we're pointing people towards the places that we want them to park and not so much the places in the neighborhood where we don't want similarly at the end of the game to try to avoid people speeding through the neighborhood to get home as quickly as possible having some really intentional traffic direction after afterwards, so we're routing everybody out in the same direction along Lowell to leave on 120th rather than going through the Bradburn neighborhood. Those are all examples of ways that we've taken that community feedback to heart and started putting together some initial ideas about how we might do better in the future.

Thank you.

Commissioner Morris?

Mr. Harlow mentioned something about a shared community amenity. Is it the intention that this is a publicly accessible field, especially when events are not being held?

Yeah, we've always welcomed any members of the community to use our playground on the weekends or walk their dog through the field on their way to the open space. We've never discouraged members of the Bradburn neighborhood from doing that sort of thing. And this will involve putting up some new fencing. But beyond that, we don't intend to limit access or use of the facilities in any way.

Thank you.

Any other questions from commissioners? Okay, thank you.

Thank you all very much.

At this time, I would like to open the public testimony portion of this hearing for item 3A. Did we have any emails or voicemails that showed up after other posted?

We did have one email that was included in the packet addendum that went out this afternoon, and we did not receive any voicemails.

Okay, and did we get anyone to sign up to speak?

Yes, we have some speakers listed here. I'm going to go ahead and call up the first speaker. Thank you. We have Kirsten Sabeck.

Hello, it's Kirsten Subak. I've been a proud member of the Westminster community for over 20 years.

Go ahead and give us your address, please.

I'd rather do that offline in light of the environment that we're living in these days. I would not want to dox myself. So I have that on the document there. So I hope you respect the fact that I would rather keep that somewhat private. But back to me being a proud member of the Westminster school, Westminster community for over 20 years. Very proud. I have family members that live in Highlands Ranch. And I gotta say, I made the right choice when I moved here. Who wants to be down there? But it's great. And I'm sorry if you all like came from there. But nonetheless, I'm very proud to be part of the Westminster community. Have any of you ever been up to the Bradburn area in, especially like during drop off and pick up and pass by and, or attended games or anything like that? We have some experience then? Okay, great. I should have said this earlier, but good evening commissioners. My name is Kirsten Subak and I am a resident of Bradburn East and I stand tonight in opposition of the ODP amendment for project PLN-25-0012. While the desire to host football games on site is understandably rooted in having school spirit. I came from a small town. I love school spirit. I was actually in the band. And I understand the perspective of that, but improving this infrastructure changes or introduces unmitigated long-term traffic and safety liabilities to a corridor that is already at its breaking point. I think we could probably all agree 120th is breaching capacity and watch out for In-N-Out Burger. The applicant may claim or has already claimed that the athletic facility was part of the original ODP, but let's be perfectly clear, if a stadium complex with commercial lighting, amplified sound and original event level traffic was actually fully vetted and approved in the original plan, we wouldn't be holding this amendment meeting tonight. An amendment is required precisely because this proposal introduces a massive escalation in scope, intensity and community impact that the original planners never authorized and that our infrastructure currently cannot support. We will likely hear testimony or did hear testimony tonight from the applicant claiming that this change has a negligible impact because games only happen on Friday nights. Respectfully, The argument ignores how modern high school athletic complexes actually operate. Friday night lights require massive stadium lighting, amplified PA systems, security, and sudden influx of hundreds of visitors visiting in vehicles coincidentally on Friday night during rush hour on 120th. I appreciate the accommodations that you addressed this evening, but furthermore, upgraded multi-use fields rarely host just varsity football and junior varsity. They inevitably become hubs for regional weekend tournaments, youth leagues, and summer camps. What is being sold as a Friday only minor shift in reality is a permanent infrastructure upgrade designed to draw crowds year round. The application will also likely, the applicant will also likely argue that the 400 seat capacity is negligible, but traffic engineering isn't just about the total number, it's about the surge volume. 400 attendees translates into roughly 160 to 200 vehicles additional on that ground. Those cars don't tackle, triple in over an eight hour day. They arrive, all at once, and you know they're running late, during peak Friday evening rush hour, and they exit all at once at the final whistle. If the site cannot contain 160 unexpected vehicles, that traffic and parking will violently overspill into the streets of Bradburn and Bradburn East, and we know this because this is something that currently happens at drop off, at pickup, at festivals, and field days. The overspill creates immediate safety risks and gridlock at low on 120th. For an intersection, and you might know this, already flagged on the high injury network per the Denver Regional Council of Government. Adding 200 cars surge and hazard is not a minor inconvenience for all of us. More importantly, we cannot view the project in a vacuum. Under municipal planning guidelines, the commission is obligated to consider cumulative impact.

You've reached your five minute limit. So I'll give you one more quick statement.

A series of small isolated approvals eventually adds up to an unlivable dangerous corridor. The applicant's desire to hold games on site does not outweigh the collective safety and mobility. for thousands of residents who use 120th Everyday Average, the commission to deny this ODP amendment until comprehensive multi-jurisdictional traffic study, including C. who is planning that federal Boulevard B rapid bus transit that's gonna be coming our way too.

Thank you for your time tonight. I really appreciate each and every one of you. Our next speaker is James Mon.

My name is James Moon, and I'd like to keep my address private, too. That's OK. You have it on that. I'm just going to be succinct, because you've gotten lots of emails. You've gotten lots of reports. In my opinion, this is already a done deal. I think Mr. Harlow made that very clear in my first emails with him that they were going to approve it or going to recommend to approve it. In his notice to you, he said basically the same thing. We are going to have impacts on our neighborhood. My wife and I are particularly concerned about, after the event, students coming into our neighborhood. We have a park, two parks, and they've been overrun by students from the academy before. I don't know how that's gonna be solved. They are private, they are marked no trespassing. How are we going to enforce that? That's not gonna be your problem, that's gonna be the police's problem. I know that the school wants this field and stuff and they've done a thoughtful job. All I can say at this point is talk is cheap and it will depend on what they end up doing in the end. All I'm going to say to all of you is if you lived in our neighborhood, would you want this stadium? I leave it at that.

Thank you.

Peggy Moon, I just wanted to see if you'd like to speak. Next speaker will be Andrew Montage.

Montway.

Montway.

Hello, my name is Andrew Montoya. I live at 11918 Meade Street. I am one of the original homeowners in the neighborhood and I am currently on the Bradbury East homeowners association board. Although the things I'll be saying are my own personal opinion and not representative of the board or the neighborhood. We don't always get to live exactly where we want. Affordability, being close to work, close to family, close to those aging loved ones that we need to take care of, generally restricts where we can live. We have heard time and time again from different members of the parents of that school that the school was there first, so we should just deal with it. And that is the kind of attitude that has repeatedly brought this neighborhood clashing with the school. Let's start with the fact that truly none of us were here on that land first. It's just a fact that 150 years ago, none of us lived. So we're all here now, we should all agree to share it. And neither us nor the school is going away. That excuse does not excuse using bushes as trash cans, I've picked up vape cartridges. I've picked up little shooters of alcohol. I picked up any number of snack wrappers from my property on a weekly basis. It does not excuse having their construction alarms go off all hours of the day. It was going off at 5 a.m. every morning. I have to wake up that early because I work on East Coast time, but I know most of my neighbors were very annoyed by that alarm. The lines of communications weren't open back then. So this went on for months until we finally got in contact with the school and they did fix the faulty alarm that was going off for no reason, all hours. It's also not an excuse for excessive parking in the neighborhood, blocking of our driveways, of our alleyways, taking up all the spaces in the neighborhood so we don't have a place to put our cars when we come home. It's become a real problem and it's consistently been a problem. Now, I am not here specifically to oppose this plan. I hope that they are true to their word, that they are going to turn over a new leaf, that they are going to have a plan to address all of our concerns. I strongly suspect that the people here today who care enough are not the problem. I know there's a very small number of people that are causing most of these issues, and I ask the people who do care enough to please if they see someone misbehaving abusing other people's property, that they politely remind them that we're all neighbors here. Thank you. Thank you.

The next speaker is Jeremy Towne.

Let me remind everyone, if someone has already and testify to the same thing you would like to testify to, please consider just reiterating that you agree with the previous speaker instead of taking your full five minutes. Okay, next speaker.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question? I see that we have the questions and comments up here. I'm just wondering if the YouTube broadcast is broadcasting the speakers or if it has this PowerPoint up because that's what I'm seeing on the screen here.

The stream should have the speakers, the public testimony.

Okay. Just wanted to make sure that the camera was on. Thanks.

Good evening, my name is Jeremy Towne. I live at 11888 Meade Court and I've been a resident of the Bradburn East community since 2023. I am also a director on the Bradburn East Homeowners Association and I'm speaking on behalf of the Homeowners Association. On behalf of the Bradburn East HOA, we respectfully ask the city of Westminster to consider the safety and wellbeing of our community, including those community members who attend the nearby school as plans move forward with the proposed stadium project at the academy. Community safety has been our primary consideration. With the school traffic as it is now, several community members, their families and their animals have been nearly hit by drivers. I am a pet owner and I can say I've had more than a trivial amount of interactions with school drop off and pickup drivers. With the increased traffic and activity expected in the area and the already existing issues we've experienced in the community, we respectfully request the city to consider additional safety improvements at and around the area. Notable areas of consideration include the intersection of 118th and Newton. Specifically, we asked that the city evaluate the installation of a four-way stop at 118th and Newton and or speed bumps as minimum traffic calming measures to help protected pedestrians, students and families. We also ask for improved traffic monitoring and enforcement along Lowell Boulevard between 120th and 118th, as well as along 118th Avenue during school drop off and pickup times. These efforts are essential to ensuring traffic flows smoothly while maintaining a safe environment for children, parents, pets, residents, and drivers alike. We appreciate your consideration and partnership, prioritizing the safety and wellbeing of our community. Thank you.

the speakers on this item.

Any questions from commissioners at this time?

Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you all the speakers who came out tonight. I just want to ask a couple of questions here. There was a mention about traffic study. I didn't see one in our packet. Was a traffic study done and submitted on this per the one speaker's request?

No, it was not, and a traffic study wouldn't typically be required for this. There's no change of use or anything of that nature that would require a traffic study.

Okay, got it. There was a mention about the parks in Bradburn East being private. Are those truly private? Are they publicly accessed, privately maintained? Do you know how those are?

Sounds like you've...

I haven't personally looked at that ODP, but our typical practice when it's not a public park is it's a private park with a public access easement over it so that anyone can use and enjoy the space. That's typical. Okay, thank you.

And I guess, you know, it sounds like there's just a lot of traffic issues and parking. If there's parking issues during the day, I know living over kind of near Stanley Lake, there's a permit system. Has there been any consideration from the city in putting a resident permit parking system during school hours and events like they do at Stanley Lake?

We do have a parking staff in community services department. We don't have anyone here tonight. But typically, that would be initiated by residents requesting that designation, and then staff would do an evaluation.

I see him. May I speak to that? I'm sorry, sir. You've had your chance for testimony. We can only, unless the board feels or the commission feels we can take additional testimony.

Chair Bosher. Yes. If I may. I'm not sure that you closed the testimony.

Okay. All right. Then you've got another chance to speak if you'd like. all i'm going to say is there is currently a permitting system in the neighborhood due to prior abuse by the school okay thank you at this time i'm going to close the public testimony portion of the hearing and i will take questions and comments from commissioners Vice Chair Carpenter, go ahead.

Yeah, thanks. I just had one other question. There were some discussions about some traffic improvements. I don't see any real traffic improvements on the ODP. Has there been any internal discussion about these off-site improvements?

So I can say we've discussed the traffic there. Obviously, there's some concerns there and could merit some improvements. I do want to be clear, though, that an ODP of this scale, it wouldn't trigger public improvements to the roadway. That wouldn't be a standard there. So nothing that would be traffic improvements would be tied directly to this ODP. It's something that our engineering department could look at and consider some improvements there.

Okay, so so it's really the onus is on the city at this point Regardless of how this motion or this this item goes to try to help mitigate this I hope and hopefully you can work with the residents and take care of that Thank you, and I have a quick question for staff I know it's been a while but did the original ODP

for this include an option to improve this field at some point?

To kind of clarify that, it's not necessarily to what's being proposed here. The original ODP and the approved ODP does include an athletic field and what they were suggesting, what they were proposing, as I kind of alluded to in my presentation, that was under the scales of administrative approval so they are entitled to have an athletic field they're entitled to add improvements to their athletic field everything was in this within the scope of their entitlement there is no typical process to need to get entitled and approved by planning commission to add things like speakers and lighting and some of that so the original odp did show an athletic field but What they had to go through for an amendment process was to add some of those features, things like the press box, you know, the sidewalks, of course, the speakers and the lighting. And that would have been an administrative review because it was just a change to the ODP. It wasn't a change in its entitlement or anything of that degree. So you could say yes.

okay thank you commissioner morris um i'd like to get some context as to the composition of the neighborhood and do they did do most of the neighbors rely mostly on off street or on street parking uh

I I believe those units have garages. I don't know to what scale though. We would have to look at their on their approved ODP. That's not something we had done. So I do know they use off street parking there, but.

Commissioner Pegg. My question is for the applicant. What time is afternoon pickup?

Sorry, can you ask the question again?

What time is afternoon pickup?

Between 3 and 3.30.

3 and 3.30. So school gets out at 3 and pretty much everybody's gone by 3.30.

We have a staggered dismissal that starts at 3 for our youngest students. and our oldest students then dismiss at 3.30. It's usually wrapped up by about 3.45. So the peak traffic times would be around 3.10 for about 10 minutes and around 3.35 for about 10 minutes.

Okay, and then how, it sounds like there's parking problems that start before then. So how early do cars kind of start showing up in the neighborhood?

Prior to that 3 o'clock dismissal time, cars might start arriving between 2.30 and 2.45. Okay.

All right. Cool. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? Commissioner Dunn.

yes uh thank you mr chairman um i am uh i have read a lot of the uh the testimony from the neighborhood and uh and uh looking over the situation i um i'm not sure if I'm for this. There are two main reasons. I read the email and heard the testimony tonight of Mr. Montoya which suggests that pickup times and drop-off times are are are far more involved than the applicant is uh is telling us there there's a lot more time there's a lot more there's a lot more congestion and that can that can delay people who live in the area um that can delay them from getting to where they need to go in one case to catch a flight. And if there's traffic, if there's congestion, if there are people coming to pick up who don't have a place to pull over and just sit in the road and block the traffic, uh that's not that's not uh that's not conducive the other reason uh is that uh i am looking at the map of uh lowell boulevard and across from the across from the football field and uh oops and uh um it When the applicant says that they are going to put the loudspeakers across the field so that the sound will be broadcast back to the east, that still, well, the loudspeakers are going to actually be closer to the houses on Lowell Boulevard. And regardless of where they're pointing, they're going to make noise. I just think that there are some issues that need to be resolved before we can go ahead with this. That's my comment. Thank you.

Okay. Any other comments, questions? Okay.

Then let's get Commissioner June. So I am conflicted with this proposal. particularly with standard number five. I'm not sure if I'm on in this with the existing community, but at the same time, I don't know if I have a strong justification to deny this. I am conflicted, though, at the moment. And I just want to note that, particularly with standard number five. OK.

Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think if we're going to discuss it, I think we should have a motion on the table. I move the Planning Commission approve the Official Development Plan Amendment for the Academy of Charter Schools, Lot 1, Block 1. This recommendation is based on the finding that the proposed Official Development Plan Amendment complies with the criteria in Section 11-5-15 of the Westminster Municipal Code.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Pegg. All right, discussion. i would like to say that i understand that there's traffic problems with this location because there's only one way in and out but the applicant has done everything they can to remediate these issues and has made changes from input it got from the community and it's not a huge stadium they're going to add a few seats so i am going to support this motion

thanks i guess when we're faced with um uh applications like this and there's uh community interest i always start with the code because that's that's what one does when you're trained as an attorney and When you start with the code and you look at what is required of them, I see that based on the analysis done by the staff, they meet the standards for approval of this application. I think there's been discussion of pick up and drop off traffic. I don't want to say that that's irrelevant, but that exists now. That's not going to change. What may change are some afternoon soccer games. I don't think this is being done just for Friday night football. That would be five or six nights a year. I don't know how many games they play anymore. I went to school long before most of you were born. um i don't think that well it's it's an issue but again are they entitled to it i think under the code they are um but there may be some additional traffic burden for an afternoon soccer game in that that happened that may happen um occasionally during the uh the the pickup or drop off or i guess in the afternoon would be pickup I want to go back, though, to a comment that Mr. Montoya, Andrew, made. And I really appreciated it. And for me, it highlights, as a mediator, I really appreciated what you said, that when you had a problem with a siren, I think it was a siren is what I wrote down, you contacted the school and they took care of it. And Overall, from 30,000 feet, I think, what they're doing is that they're responding to comments so far. And if they don't follow through on that, I think what the community needs to do is talk to the school and say, you said you were gonna do this, you were gonna have more police officers, you were gonna do whatever it is. Have conversations. And if there's a problem that arises that doesn't exist now, have a conversation. So those are my comments.

Okay, thank you.

let's see oh we've got another comment yeah so i know that uh staff indicated that this project does not trigger a traffic study or traffic improvement but i do want to note if possible if the cities incline and they have the capacity to To work with the community members to see if a traffic study can be done and improvements as listed by some of our community members listed particularly I think a new and then low I think those are the cross streets so again, I understand that this project does not trigger that but if the engineering department has the capacity I Implore the city to work with the community on that. I

If there is no further discussion, I will ask the Secretary for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Kinnear?

Yes.

Commissioner Morris? Yes. Commissioner Dunn?

No.

Chair Bosher?

Yes.

Vice Chair Carpenter?

Yes.

Commissioner Jean?

No.

Commissioner Pegg?

Yes.

Okay, the motion passes. Let's see if I've got my math correct. Five to two? Correct. So, all right, thank you for your input. We appreciate it very much. So we are moving on to item number 3B. I will open the public hearing on item 3B, recommendation of an official development plan for pros, uplands filing three, block one, tract A, and block three.

One down.

All right, good evening, Commissioners. My name is Rev Batesall, Senior Planner with the City's Planning Division, here to present the PROS-Uplands Multifamily Official Development Plan for your recommendation. As part of bringing this project before you, a staff agenda memo has been created and tonight's public hearing has been properly noticed. The agenda memo, its associated attachments, tonight's PowerPoint presentation, the mailed notices and the posted notices are hereby entered into the public record. The notices of the public hearing were mailed to over 700 property owners and tenants within a thousand feet of the site under consideration tonight and seven public notification signs were posted on the subject property. The city also posted the hearing date and time on its website. The project site is located on the southeast corner of Federal Boulevard and West 88th Avenue. The proposed development consists of two lots totaling 8.5 acres. Here's the proposed site plan associated with the official development plan. This proposed development includes the construction of 276 multifamily residential units in 10 three-story buildings, a single-story clubhouse, and associated site amenities. The standards governing this application are found in section 11.515 of the Westminster Municipal Code. That section provides 17 criteria that need to be considered when the city evaluates an ODP amendment. After reviewing the application materials and the proposed development, staff finds that this application does not comply with all 17 criteria in Section 11.515 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and recommend that the City Council deny the PROS-Uplands Multifamily Official Development Plan. An alternative supported by staff is to recommend that the City Council approve the PROS-Uplands Multifamily ODP subject to the following conditions. One would be to revise the design of the buildings to incorporate roof breaks as required by our multifamily design standards. or provide solar panels on all of the buildings, the same size as shown on sheet 43, that's referencing sheet 43 of the official development plan. And staff recommends that that would meet the proposed exception justification. Number two is to revise the site design to provide screening of the parking with a minimum 36-inch screen wall as required by the multi-family design standards. Number three, revise the site design to meet at least a minimum of 30% landscape area or to propose an alternative to increase the density or intensity of the landscaping as required by the 2004 landscape regulations and the multi-family design standards. Number four, to revise the design of the buildings to provide the minimum size and quantity of patios and balconies as required by the design standards. And number five, all of these would require the applicant to return the ODP to technical review to incorporate the above changes, which then could be administratively approved, would not have to come back through Planning Commission City Council. Staff finds that this application will support the following city strategic plan priorities. Strategy priority one, opportunity to thrive, to promote affordable living and stable housing, access to services and connected neighborhoods that foster access to opportunity and prosperity. And strategic priority five, resilient infrastructure, to develop and maintain reliable infrastructure with proactive planning and investments to promote growth and deliver high quality services. That concludes staff's presentation. I appreciate your attention. Of course, I and other staff members are here to answer any questions. The applicant is also with us tonight and will now give their presentation and after they will be able to answer questions as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello commissioners, my name is Ellie Reynolds. I'm here for the applicant tonight and I'm joined with my team behind me, Andrew Farley, the development director and Andy Clay, the managing director of Alliance. So thank you for giving us the opportunity to do a presentation before you tonight on really why we believe that this project is the right fit for your city. While there are some conditions that we've made throughout the process, we'd like to talk to you about why we made those conditions. Next slide, sorry. First, we'd like to just give you an overview of who the developer is. So while Alliance is out of Arizona, they have a longstanding presence here in Colorado with over 5,000 units just in the Denver metro area and over 115,000 units in their portfolio. So while they are a large organization that has a lot of experience, they're also very local and the team is local here today. Next slide, please. Really our goals with this project were to be able to provide the city what they're looking for when it comes to housing, which is that attainable workforce product that is so desperately needed. This would serve really that missing middle right now that we don't see available. We've also created a pedestrian-oriented residential community with integrated amenities throughout the site, as well as incorporated efficient site planning, structured parking, and have also delivered the city over 276 units to get to its housing goals while also meeting some of the design goals that are requirements in the city. I'd like to first start with, we started this process with the city over a year ago today, and that's really important context about why we're here tonight asking for this. Ultimately in May of 2025, we came to the city with a site plan in over 288 units and had to create significant changes to the design to be able to deliver this missing metal product. Next slide, please. This is the site, I know that Rev talked about it already, it's on the southeast corner of West 88th and Federal Avenue in the Uplands Master planned community. We believe ultimately this is a perfect product for that site, which has sat vacant for over 10 years. So it would really be the right thing to develop in that area, especially consistent with your planning. Next slide, please. The next one we have here is really just to describe what REB did, which is the cohesive plan and zoning consistency here. Ultimately, this would provide you that high density housing that you're looking for in that area, as well as adjacent to some of the transit commuter rail that you're all looking for to be able to connect into that high density housing. And it would also locate with pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure connectivity throughout that area, really creating that catalyst for that uplands area. Next slide, please. Overall, we've talked about the amount of units from where we started to today. What you'll see in front of you today is a project overview or a site plan with 276 attainable apartment units. Really what we're saying when we're saying that is that the rents will start at about 1600, which is really under that 70% threshold right now for AMI in the Denver Metro Adams County area. with a mix from what we originally came in based off some of the city's feedback about what they'd like to see. So you can see there's a great mix there between studio, one bedroom, two bedrooms, really trying to create an affordable project for the area.

Next slide.

Oh, is this the next one? Sorry, site plan here. So we kind of talked about creating the walkability. You can see in the middle there some of the amenities that will be served in this area. We have a park there, the clubhouse that will be there, Screened Inn building and landscaping. We are centrally located with some open space and residential amenities. Important to note that we did the downward directed site lighting as well as installed the solar, which is required through the city, as well as electrical vehicle charging parking stations for the residents there. Next slide. Ultimately, this is the design that you've seen throughout the Metro area come out of Alliance. It's really that farmhouse architecture. You can see that the balconies on some of the sides of these, it's that contemporary farmhouse, three-story and a muted palette.

Next slide.

We talked about the community benefits a little bit. Besides this really being a great housing project for that area, which is really what the Comprehensive Master Plan calls for in this area, it also would come with a pool deck, clubhouse, lawn, a playground, a seating area, and a dog park. And also just the landscape design that we've worked with with the city was we've added much more landscape than we initially had came in with, creating those really strong buffers around And you can kind of see that on the site plan. It's important to note that we also changed some of the parking which we had initially came in and tried to utilize some off street and have moved that insight. So really made quite a bit of concessions along the way of this project. And as far as our neighborhood outreach, as Reb talked about, we posted and we did have a neighborhood meeting on October 22nd of last year. And we had one person in attendance, all positive feedback. from the community, the one person that was there wants to see it developed, right? Right now it is sitting vacant and wants that housing solution. And we have made ourselves available to receive additional feedback from the neighborhood if it's been requested, but we have not received anything additional since that meeting. And then next slide, please. Oh, I'm sorry, I just went over that, next one. I would say the additional impacts that we're really looking for today and some of the things that Reb went over that we'd like to draw attention to are just the costs that are associated with some of the variances that we're looking for. We ultimately cannot deliver a product with as large of balconies as was required and nor has Alliance developed anything like this in the metro area. And so what we did to try to meet in the middle on those balcony sizes was to add 42 additional balconies so that more residents would have the ability to have a balcony, but not make them as large to cut into the overall cost of the project to be able to drive those rents up. It was very important that we keep it with something that's attainable. Additionally, there was the solar that was put in. That was a request we ultimately started by asking to just plug the solar in and to be able to have that pre-wired, but ultimately through the planning process have put solar into the building. but because of the roof breaks that were requested, you could only put so much solar based off of the design of how the city would like those roof breaks. To accommodate, we're trying to do both. You just can't have the roof breaks and necessarily the solar to be able to provide that product. So we're doing both at a smaller scale. And then also through this process, we've increased obviously that building articulation, which is the roof breaks that we're talking about and the level, as well as a lot of the landscaping that we've just had in between. We've really increased the landscaping areas between the buildings, as well as from the street to the main building. So ultimately that's where we've seen quite a bit from the last year that we've worked on to make this product ultimately attainable, be able to deliver it to the market in that price point while still trying to meet some of the city's requirements and staying consistent with city code. So with that, thank you so much. And then we do have some additional examples if you'd like to see any of the other work that we've done throughout the Denver area. So thank you.

Thank you. Any questions from Planning Commission? I have a quick question for staff. If the applicant was willing to provide solar panels in the quantity that the city originally requested, you would consider altering the roof break requirement?

Yes, thank you, Chair. That is one of the conditions of approval, is if they provided the solar on all the buildings instead of just some of them, that would meet their justification for the exception, which is we can't put solar when there are many roof breaks. And so staff said, okay, well then please add solar to all of the buildings.

Okay. all right so it's it sounds like the applicant is making these changes because of cost does the city staff agree that that is a problem with this project um the cost is always comes into play when we go back and forth with comments and corrections um

One of the things I wrote about in my staff report is that They cite increasing much-needed housing diversity and reducing cost as a justification for these exceptions. However, this multi-family development is not unlike other market rate projects approved in compliance with city rules and regulations. Staff would want to make sure that equitable application of the design requirements for residential projects is essential to provide uniform quality throughout the city.

right and one last question is attainability more important to the city or meeting code requirements and design requirements more important in our experience and with recent multi-family projects we don't think those goals are at odds there's two affordable projects adjacent to here that did not need this number of exceptions Okay, thank you. It looks like Vice Chair Carpenter, you had a comment, changed your mind?

Well, I will have a couple of questions. I guess, Well, we do see a lot of things with design exceptions because of the state of our code and that's what the Unified Development Code is going to hopefully stop having so many exceptions. But I guess my first question is a why question. Why has staff recommended opposing this versus recommending the alternative motion that was provided in there to revise the buildings with the roof breaks or provide the solar panels, the site design, all that? Why has staff recommended denial instead of the alternative motion?

Thank you for your question, Vice Chair. It's one or the other. So, essentially, we're recommending them. We have the same level of recommendation either do not recommend City Council approve as is or recommend City Council approve with the conditions outlined before you.

Okay. So you're really not recommending denial, you're recommending one or the other equally. Okay. Got it. That kind of changes the tenor of things a little bit. I guess I'll ask a question about the site. You have a comment to revise the site design to provide screening of parking. From my review of the site plan, it looks like the buildings are screening the parking and I don't know exactly what a 36-inch screen wall costs. It depends on what material. If it's vinyl, it will be fairly cheap. If it's masonry, it's going to be very expensive in my experience as an engineer. So, what does that look like and what type of cost impacts to the applicant would that be?

Can I please call up senior planner Stephanie Ashman? She's our senior planner of landscape and conservation and I coordinated with her on drafting these conditions of approval.

Hi, thank you. Nice to see you all. So for the parking lot screening, in most of the instances on the plan, the parking lot is being screened by buildings. However, if you look at the site plan and see the parking lot adjacent to the eastern property line, that's where the screening does not occur. And there's a minimal area to be able to screen it with landscape properly. So the suggested remedy for that outcome would be to have a screen wall. And the screen wall would be somewhere out of that 36 inches in height or so, enough to be able to screen the area in most cases, the light from parking vehicles, the headlights coming in. We also typically like to have our parking lot screened with landscape berms and increased landscaped area. And there's just not enough space in the shown location on the site plan.

Yeah. And what was the material of that screening fence?

In instances where we have approved or negotiated that outcome, it's a masonry screen wall, sometimes with an Allen block split faced type of wall, which is a concrete block wall. There's been other instances where you can do a brick veneer, you can do a brick wall itself. We can be pretty flexible with taking a look at how those materials relate to the other materials applied on site for cohesiveness.

Okay. So, but long story short, it's going to be block brick concrete. It's not going to be vinyl. It's not going to be wood.

It will not.

Understood. And that area to the east, isn't that multifamily that we previously approved or am I in the wrong spot? I'm just...

Directly to the east across Decatur's is rather older Prospector's Point condominiums. There's two other multifamily projects as part of the Uplands master development that are north of 87th place and east of Decatur and those were affordable as an income restricted affordable. Okay.

So, that's the area that was there and then across Decatur is the older prospector's point. All right. So, you're mostly concerned right now about screening between screening across Decatur to the existing residences? That's correct, okay got it All right, I think I Think those are most of my questions for now. I'll save the rest for later.

Thank you Commissioner peg Yeah, I you can you can say at the mic my questions are for you, I think So my understanding is that this screening wall would be required on the east side of the property I yes or increased landscape okay and would this go uh it looks like this is mostly screened by the buildings except for maybe three spots is that what i'm seeing along the eastern property line yes we could pull up the site plan and have a look from what i see it's all parking lot and then it's um i don't know how many spaces Isn't that street parking on Decatur? I think I see two gaps between the buildings where you might have problems there. Would this screening wall have to create, would this create an obstacle to pedestrians?

If we could pull up the site plan, it would really help me to be able to speak too.

Okay. Are you folks working on that?

Yes.

It's on page 109 of the PDF. Okay.

What's this here?

OK. Okay. So do you all have access to taking a look at the site plan?

Yes.

Okay. Thank you. So you'll see that top portion of the property. I'm not sure what lot that is identified as, but it's the Northern portion North of 87th along the Eastern property line. You'll see there's about 20 plus or so spaces, that's the area of concern. Then there's vacant property adjacent to that and then there's Decatur. So what you're seeing is all of the parking lot from that location. Does that clarify that for you?

Yes, it does. It's just the northern portion that really needs the wall.

Well, the northern portion, if you take a look at the landscape plan, has a decent amount of landscape to be able to block the view. It's more so along that eastern edge.

Right.

Okay.

I see it, yes.

And there's not a whole lot of space in that area. It's about five feet. So you can't accomplish too much landscape or substantial landscape within a five foot area. If you're trying to go for mature trees, you can go with hedges, um, Birmingham, an area that that's small is not necessarily something that's going to be achievable or substantial to accommodate the, the regulation.

Right. So is my understanding that the screening wall would only be required north of 87th?

I believe so. Yeah. Because on the other side, south of 87th does have building screening. The buildings pretty much surround and encompass the parking on that lower portion.

Yes. Okay.

Which is good. It is a good practice to do that.

All right. All right, all right, I have my bearings now. So just east of here, what is that zone for? Sorry.

Just east of the site.

Just east of the northern portion of the site where the screening wall would go.

That's Uplands Filing 3 Block 2, which currently has a project called Overlook at the Uplands. It's the affordable development.

okay and then just south of that is that prospector's point development all right okay great thank you for that information my concern here is that a screening wall would block pedestrian access between those two so if your kid for example made a friend in the development next door a screening wall would impede them going to meet each other

So if it were to be proposed on the application as requested, we would ensure that the connections would occur safely where people could cross that would align with sidewalks, parking lot islands, medians, things that would be able to continue a safe pedestrian walk.

And I appreciate that. What you said about the south side not requiring a screening wall, that's great. But because this has the potential to connect people to each other, which I think, I may be conflating the comprehensive plan with the city's strategic priorities, but my understanding is we want to help people connect with each other. I think a screening wall like that would get in the way. I have my own personal experiences with that that make me loathe screening walls, but this isn't really the place to go into detail on that.

Landscaping could also be an acceptable alternative provided that there's enough area to accommodate and step stones through that area would be able to achieve what you're asking for. We've done that in other instances on site plans that we've approved.

But your objection was that it's only five feet wide. It would be hard to accomplish sufficient screening in that space.

Correct, they're also under their landscaped percentage as well on the site. So increasing the area would also help achieve increasing their landscape percentage as required for our code.

if i might interject here looking at the plan there is an area where an opening in the fence could be put that would not interfere with its use as a block for headlights so there could be a pedestrian opening built into that wall that would do just what you're suggesting commissioner pegg So I don't think that is really an issue with this particular wall. I think if they built it to block, what they're trying to attain here is blocking headlights from cars. interfering with the next development that will be to the east. But you could still put in a pedestrian opening in that wall that would allow pedestrians. It's about halfway between one end and the other. So that could be achieved without taking the entire wall away. Just an interjection. I wanted to suggest that. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner, excuse me, Vice Chair Carpenter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not to pile on, but I think this is important. On that northerly tract north of 87th there, I assume when the housing next door, in uplands filing three there that that was approved i assume they had some screening along their westerly side of some sort and as part of that approval is there any opportunity to for a cross-access cross access easements, not the right word, but cross using that landscaping, just knowing how expensive that type of wall is. I mean, granted, we should, hopefully the applicant will work with, would be able to work and get the landscaping numbers up to whatever they need to be. But as far as the specific screening, while is there any way that they could piggyback off each other since I assume there was already screening in there, something like that.

We'd have to review that in conjunction with it to see if that's a possibility.

Okay. Yeah, that project didn't request this exception, so they met the intent of the requirement through other means, possibly through a site design that didn't require the need for a wall of that nature. Right.

Okay. Yeah.

well we still haven't had public testimony so i probably should end up asking those questions after that i agree thank you thank you thank you at this time i'd like to open the public testimony on item 3b did we have any emails or voicemails

We did not receive any emails or voicemails on this item.

Okay. Do we have anyone signed up to speak?

Yes, I do have a few speakers. Okay. I'll go ahead and call the first speaker up, Chris Strong.

Good evening, Council, my name is Chris Strong. I reside in the Prospector's Point. I appreciate the opportunity to speak tonight regarding the requested exceptions for the Upland multifamily development. I really respect the developer's goals and understand that every project involves balancing costs and design. However, these exceptions collectively reduce the long-term quality, beauty, and livability of our community. There's a couple of specific areas that I'd like to address. First, it's the developer in regards to the reduced landscaping. The developer requests reducing landscaping from the required 40% to a mere 20%. People live in Colorado because of the beauty of our environment and outdoor spaces. Landscaping is part of the quality of life in Westminster and Colorado. Reducing landscaping by half lowers the overall quality and character of the development. Mature landscaping improves property values, walkability, shade, and community appeal. Westminster should prioritize long-term beauty and livability over short-term developer cost savings. Why of all areas would the city consider compromising here? I request that no exception should be granted in this area. In regards to the continuous roof ridge line, a continuous roof line creates the appearance of a large sort of box like structure, almost warehouse style buildings. The design lacks architectural variation, visual interest and curb appeal. Westminster has an opportunity and an obligation to encourage attractive, thoughtful development that enhances property values and community identity. We should not compromise aesthetics for a solar plan that is not continuous throughout the entire development. In regards to the patio and balcony exception, the developer proposes adjusting the quantity and size of patios and balconies. This proposal feels like a trade off on paper rather than a meaningful improvement for residents. In Colorado, outdoor living space matters. Residents want usable patios and balconies where they can comfortably sit, dine, relax, and spend time with their family and pets. Smaller outdoor spaces may technically meet requirements, but they reduce quality of life and value. Most residents would likely accept some architectural repetition before sacrificing functional outdoor living spaces. Developments in Westminster and Colorado should reflect the outdoor lifestyle residents really value. I respect developers seek efficiency and cost savings. That's understandable. But this project is not just an investment opportunity. It will become part of our community, our neighborhoods, and our daily lives. Westminster should expect development that strengthens our city for the long term, not projects shaped primarily by exceptions and reductions. Our residents deserve thoughtful, attractive, functional communities, and I urge council to deny these requested exceptions. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

The next speaker, I wanted to see if Tristan Murphy wanted to speak. I have Andrea Pham. Andrea Pham.

Marcus unless there's anybody that would like to speak that concludes the list okay is there anyone who wishes to speak see none I will close the public testimony portion of the hand and we will either entertain a motion or we will discuss this with questions and comments Remember we have two possibilities here for motions. One is to deny, the other is to approve with conditions. Commissioner Kinnear.

Thank you. um would like to make a motion i move that the planning commission recommends city council approve the official development plan for pros upland subject to the additional conditions one revised the design of the buildings to incorporate roof breaks as required by the multi-family design standards mfds 81-1-d3 or provide solar panels on all buildings the same size is shown on sheet 43 Attachment two, to meet the proposed exception justification. Number two, revise the site design to provide screening of the parking with a minimum 36-inch screen wall as required by MFDS LD-1D7. Number three, revise the site design to meet at least a minimum of 30% landscape area or propose an alternative to increase the density or intensity of landscaping as required by the 2004 landscape regulation. and the MFDS LD-1A1. Number four, revise the design of the buildings to provide the minimum size and quantity of patios and balconies as required by MFDS AD-3B. Number five, return the ODP to technical review to incorporate the above changes with administrative approval. This recommendation is based on a finding that the official development plan is not supported by the criteria set forth in section 11-5-115 of the Westminster Municipal Code.

Do we have a second? Vice Chair Carpenter? I will second that. Thank you. I am in complete support of this motion. I believe the staff has mentioned that this development, although costs have increased, other developers are making this work. in the city and I think that we should hold this developer to the codes and requirements we have for design and if they need to negotiate with the city, they can do that. Commissioner Pegg.

I would like to motion for an amendment to the motion on the table.

Okay.

Greg, how do we handle that? Commissioner Pegg would make his amendment pitch. Well, I shouldn't say the pitch. Make his amendment, suggested amendment. The original motion maker and the second must both agree. And if they don't, it fails.

Okay. Go ahead, Commissioner Pegg.

I move to strike condition four from the current motion on the table.

Okay. Mr. Kinnear. This is the minimum size and quantity of patios? Patios and balconies. Yeah. No, I wouldn't agree to strike that. Okay.

And does Vice Chair Carpenter get to comment on that as well? Or is it the primary? It doesn't really matter at this point. Okay. Because he has said no. Okay. That amendment does not pass. So we have a motion in front of us. Any discussion?

commissioner joe excuse me so i am conflicted um first i want to applaud the developers and i think missing middle is a conversation that we need to have and i do think that developers are trying to address that um 265 units or 276 units um and there's a need for that missing middle particularly in the city at the same time i'm also conflicted with the 14 exceptions that have been requests and then i'm also conflicted that the city approves certain exceptions and denies certain exceptions. And so I'm a mess right now because I'm just conflicted with this whole process. A part of me says, why are we putting conditions on developers when we know we need this missing middle, particularly with the demographic groups that are coming into Westminster and the groups that already exist here who need housing. um on the flip side i also believe that the city has the obligation to protect the landscape um and and not just provide housing for folks but provide a um a living situation that builds community and i think landscaping plays a role in that um and then I just don't know the processes of giving us the ability to approve and deny exceptions is an effective process for this process. So I'm conflicted. That's what I want to note.

Vice Chair Carpenter. Oh, no, excuse me, Commissioner Morris.

I tend to share the same sentiment. It seems as though I'm in support of building that number of units at that area. But it does seem like there's been some sort of stalemate between the city and the development. And it doesn't seem like the delta on some of these exceptions is really that far. So it does make it kind of difficult to be put in a position where my job is to force you to take city exceptions.

That's all. Okay. Vice Chair Carpenter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. you know i i probably would have agreed with commissioner pegg's uh amendment in theory i think you know i think we have two things in conflict here the desire for attainable housing and the desire to have high quality standards and i think there's probably a way to make that work i That said, the exceptions in here on paper are quasi-reasonable, and we can only judge the standards based on what they are. Council, however, they are the ones who pass ordinances, so they could give, say, relief on the design or the quantity and size of the balconies and patios. Potentially, if you're able to work with your neighbor or not, something on the screen wall, which I'm afraid is going to be prohibitively expensive for an affordable project. It's prohibitively expensive for market rate projects. I see that all the time. And the roof breaks are solar. I don't wanna send you guys back through an entire architectural redesign, because I know that's just gonna be so much, and I don't want you to have to redesign your entire site. So I'm supporting the motion to move it forward, but really council's the right venue for you to get relief on this, and we can only vote on the ordinances and the code as it exists today.

Commissioner Kinnear. Thanks. I started the review of this on the basis that 14 exceptions requested are a lot. And the project, whatever the ultimate cost ends up being, if we want to have a project, it is what it is. And we have the code for a reason. And so if we can't make this project work in compliance with the code, then we can't make the project work. That said, I think what I read the alternative that I have moved for approval of is something of a accommodation or a negotiation where staff has found a way to justify exceptions where before I didn't see any. And that's the basis for why I believe this is the better option. And of course, we're only recommending to city council. We're not approving or disapproving anything on our own. But I think this strikes a good balance, which is why I so moved.

Commissioner Pegg. My comment here is that there are two things that I think are in conflict, two things which staff is recommending on this approval with conditions. The site design, particularly the landscaping, my worry is that if we require more landscaping, that means fewer homes. There's a forthcoming BRT corridor on Federal Boulevard if we build fewer homes, that undercuts the viability of that in the future. Second, increasing the size of patios and balconies, I don't think hurts anyone. If the balconies really are too small, that would be reflected in lower rents. Nobody's being bamboozled here. We're not stealing anybody's balcony. People have a choice in where they live. They are not herded into apartments, right? They could move into apartments a mile away if they wanted more balcony. So that's why I'm sort of opposed to these conditions on the approval.

Okay, one last comment from me. I am in agreement with Commissioner Kinnear. I believe we need to follow the code and I don't think we need to cheapen our projects just to make them affordable. For instance, the solar panels is to me non-negotiable. Considering the energy situation we are quickly moving into, solar is going to be very important. and the outdoor living space. I don't believe that's negotiable. There are plenty of apartments that have none and they are not highly sought after. So I am gonna support this motion. Any other comments?

So I'm a big fan of solar, but I don't know if it's the position of the city should be to be obligate and forcing developers to put that there. I just want to put that on the record. Okay.

If there's no further discussion, I will ask the secretary for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Kinnear.

Yes.

Commissioner Morris? Yes. Commissioner Dunn?

Yes.

Chair Bosher?

Yes.

Vice Chair Carpenter?

Yes.

Commissioner Jung?

Yes.

Commissioner Pegg?

Yes. Okay, the motion passes unanimously. Thank you. We have one more item on the agenda, but I need to know if we need a bio break before we do that. Does anyone need a break? Okay, we're gonna take a five minute bathroom break or bio break.

you Thank you. you Amen.

Okay, I'd like to go ahead and proceed with item 3C, proposed updates to the Planning Commission bylaws discussion. This item is open to the public. However, public testimony will not be accepted. This portion of tonight's Planning Commission meeting does not include a public hearing, but will allow the commissioners to discuss staff's proposed updates to the Planning Commission bylaws. Commissioner should refer to the packet that contains the proposed updates to the bylaws to begin discussion. So, you've all got a copy. If you have any comments, now is the time.

Chair Bosher, if I may, I'd like to explain a few of the changes that I made that we are suggesting in, I think it's section F. We're starting in section F. We'll just go one item at a time. Okay. So the last two sentences of F quorum, there are two reasons for those changes. One is that a quorum is just how many members of the commission are present and whether or not that number is sufficient to take action. That is all a quorum is about. Additionally, those last two sentences, one is actually in a different section, set forth in a different section, so it's not necessary here. And then the last one, If the vote is a tie, that has everything to do with how motions are handled. And again, Section G below this section is all about motions and voting. So it really wasn't appropriate to have those items there anyway. At the... Subsection one of section G, I struck presented by members. um motions aren't presented by anybody but members so it's it's redundant it's really not necessary language um i'm i'm absolutely certain that many years ago lawyers were paid by the word and that is why so much of what they write is horribly verbose um I'm on salary. I'm here essentially for free right now. I have a question about my mortgage.

I'd like to talk with you later.

Only in your capacity as Planning Commission. Yes, always, always conditions. So the next change is adding the language with the exception of motions to approve the meeting minutes. That is because we're changing or at least it's my understanding that the Planning Commission would like to change that language with respect to the meeting minutes. So we're creating an exception for that. And then all the rest of this Section G is the same until you get down to number five. Subsection 5, and that is all new language. So if you haven't had a chance to read that, maybe go ahead and do that now. Hopefully that captures what the Planning Commission's direction was from the last meeting. And in the meantime, I'm going to hum the Jeopardy theme song if that's okay. Kidding. Perfect. I'm not going to hum.

Mr. Graham, are we going to be voting on this tonight or are we just reviewing?

You can vote on this tonight, but if you would prefer to postpone the vote to another meeting, that's fine as well.

Okay.

I will say that that is how I understood G5. Thank you.

Okay. Do we have any discussion on this? I think everyone's had a chance to read it. I think these are appropriate changes. I appreciate it. But I will entertain any other comments.

I agree with the chair. I think we've accomplished what we wanted to do as far as the minutes and voting on it if you were absent. My only comment is if we do vote on this tonight that on the page four or five we say passed and adopted by the city of westminster planning commission this day of blank 2022 i would just request we change that to 2026 unless you have a time machine and if so i'm going to give you some money to invest when you go back there there's a rumor of a tardis back in the closet okay all right for all you doctor who fans

Unless there are other comments, I also just wanted to comment on what is the new number six, subsection six in G. I expanded that slightly primarily to make it clearer that any matter is a tie that the requests that are proposed action is defeated. That's typically how things are done. And I will tell you, I ran into a situation where that was not clear with a Board of Adjustment that I worked with and the jurisdiction was sued over that and unfortunately the judge who will remain nameless did not seem to understand that a tie means it the item that was presented was not approved and therefore failed so i'm a big fan of keeping that keeping that language in all bylaws so it's very very clear and i just wanted to expand it a little to make it as crystal clear as possible commissioner yeah so we do have a word expansion here requested or proposed uh correct were you paid for those birds i was i was that was not okay actually um yeah I threw those in for free. Okay. I was paid for moving That sentence down but you know five bucks is five bucks I Would move that He I'm sorry.

I'm getting ahead of you know, I haven't I

You were ahead of him and so if you Commissioner Pegg, did you have a comment or do have a comment?

It's about section I on the time limits We had quite the discussion about time limits and I noticed tonight that we went over five and so I'm simply Respectfully requesting that we really stick to that five-minute limit Okay

Is it called out in here that there is a time limit? I don't see it.

Section I, and I think it's two or three.

I, too.

Okay. Again, if we allow people to go over, even though we're trying to be kind, it opens up to baseless accusations of bias. and so i think given nobody wanted a three minute time limit last time five should be five okay

Okay, Commissioner Kinnear, continue.

Then I move that the Planning Commission approve the City of Westminster Planning Commission bylaws and rules of procedure as amended as discussed today. It doesn't have a number or anything, but that's it.

Okay, do we have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you. Discussion? If there is no further discussion, do we need a roll call on this? I believe we've kind of moved that direction. It's up to the chair. Let's do a roll call.

Commissioner Kinnear?

Yes.

Commissioner Morris? Yes. Commissioner Dunn?

Yes.

Chair Bosher?

Yes.

Vice Chair Carpenter?

Yes.

Commissioner Jean?

Yes.

Commissioner Pegg?

Yes. Okay, it passes unanimously.

Thank you, everyone. I believe we will need these bylaws signed by you, Chair Boschert. Yes.

And I will change the date to the 26th.

Yeah, we can do that at the next meeting. Well, we can do it anytime. It doesn't have to be the next meeting. It can be now, it can be later. The only question would be, or the only concern would be, you know, make sure you're signing the current draft that was approved. Does that say draft on it still? Okay.

Should I, at the next meeting, bring like a, if we do it at the next meeting, I'll have it without the red lines on it? Yeah. And the corrected dates.

Right, actually, okay, that works. Unfortunately, I won't be at the next meeting, but when I get back, I'll give you a call and I'll come down and sign it. Okay. All right, any old business? Any miscellaneous business? Commissioner Pegg.

Greg, I want to thank you for facilitating our discussion about the new bylaws at the last meeting and for making it very clear what the changes were tonight. Thank you. You're welcome.

Yes, thank you for all your work on this. All right. This meeting is adjourned at 9.06 p.m.

Thank you.