Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

. . Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you.

ronnie are we recording thank you okay welcome everyone to the july 14th 2026 meeting of the city of westminster planning commission the first thing i need to say is that item 3b that was on a night this evening's agenda excuse me has been removed it was the kaiser redevelopment project that will not be heard at the hearing tonight so if you're here for that unfortunately we won't be hearing it Anyone who would like to speak for item 3A, there's a sign-up sheet in the back of the room if you have not signed already. We call all speakers in the order in which they have signed up. So if you wish to speak, please do that. Can we get a roll call, please?

Commissioner Kinnear?

Here.

Commissioner Tomachek?

Excused.

Commissioner Dunn?

Here.

Chair Bosher?

Here.

Vice Chair Carpenter.

Here.

Commissioner Jung.

Here.

Commissioner Peng.

Here.

Commissioner Colling. Here. Commissioner Morris.

Excused. So we have a quorum for tonight's hearing. And with that, I would like to get a motion in front of us for consideration of the preceding meeting minutes from June 9th, 2026. Do we have anyone who feels brave? So moved. Thank you, Commissioner Dunn. And I do think we need a second. Is there anyone who would like to second that? I'll second. Thank you, Commissioner Kinnear. Do we need a roll call on this? OK.

Yes. Commissioner Kinnear?

Yes.

Commissioner Dunn?

Yes.

Chair Bosher?

Yes.

Vice Chair Carpenter?

Yes.

Commissioner Young?

Abstain. I wasn't there for the meeting.

All right. Commissioner Pegg?

Also abstain.

Commissioner Colling? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, the motion passes. So at this time, I would like to open the public hearing. We have one item on tonight's agenda. That's item 3A, public hearing and consideration of an official development plan for the Mountain Range High School Nutrition Center. I hereby open the public hearing, and I believe we have Ms. Batzel presenting for the city.

Yes, thank you. Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Reb Batesel, Senior Planner with the City's Planning Division, here to present the Mountain Range High School Official Development Plan for your consideration. This type of development application would typically be approved administratively. However, review staff reached an impasse with the applicant regarding compliance with certain standards involving architecture, retaining wall design, and some landscape design. This degree of noncompliance on these issues is uncommon among development applications. And so the city manager exercised his authority under the Westminster Municipal Code to refer this ODP to the Planning Commission for its review and determination. So that's why you're seeing this tonight. As part of bringing this project before you, a staff agenda memo has been created. 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 tonight's public hearing were mailed to 1,100 property owners and tenants within 1,000 feet of the site under consideration tonight. One public notification sign was posted on the subject property in both English and Spanish, and the city also posted the hearing date and time on its website. The existing Mountain Range High School campus is located at 12500 Huron Street and the proposed nutrition center shown in the southeast corner is addressed as 12450 Delaware Street. Here's the proposed site plan associated with the official development plan. The proposed development includes the construction of a 44,550 square foot nutrition center and associated site improvements. 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, or an ODP. After reviewing the application materials and the proposed development, staff finds that this application does not comply with the criteria in section 11.515 of the Westminster Municipal Code. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing and deny the Mountain Range High School Nutrition Center official development plan. An alternative supported by staff is to recommend that the Planning Commission conditionally approve the Nutrition Center ODP subject to the following conditions. Number one, to revise the architecture to either match the masonry provided on the stadium buildings or the existing school buildings. Number two, due to existing site constraints, staff supports a tree to shrub substitution at 10 shrubs per one tree. Substitutions are required in addition to meeting the shrub planting ratio. Staff supports the planting ratio of trees to be reduced by 50% for a total of, it outlines the substitution numbers here, Number three, revise the site design and relocate the building as needed in order to allow space for compliant retaining walls. And number four would be to return the ODP to technical review to incorporate the above changes, which would then be approved administratively. A denial of this application would support the following city's strategic plan priorities of priority one, opportunity to thrive, and priority five, resilient infrastructure by ensuring that new development is built of a quality comparable to other development in Westminster without exceptions that are not warranted by virtue of design or special amenities incorporated into the development. This concludes my staff presentation. I appreciate your attention this evening and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. The applicant is also with us tonight and will now give their presentation after which they will also be available to answer questions.

Thank you.

I always have to pull down the mic. Good evening, chairperson, commissioners. Thank you for this opportunity to be here. And before we start tonight, I want to do a little bit of housekeeping because we want to introduce some of those that are with me tonight. So first we have some presenters that'll join me, Ross Eddy and Eric Vogel with MOA Architecture. They are our design partners for this project. Also want to introduce Mr. John Hostager. He's with Adams 12 as a facility planner and John and our project team has been collaborating with REB and the planning team here in the city throughout this project. Also in attendance, we have leaders from both our Nutrition Services Department and our Construction Facility Design Department, along with JHL, kind of front and back there, our contractor for this project, and they're patiently awaiting to break ground and bring this project to life. And finally, before we begin, I had the opportunity to deliver a letter to you in the city offices on Monday, and I did see that as part of the addendum posted on the website, but I brought extra copies if anybody needs them. I don't know if, Ronnie, they need to come to you or just leave them here.

You can bring them over to me. All right.

All right, and with that, we'll begin. First slide, please. So you see the images on the screen. This is our why. We are here for kids and students. Everything we do in Adams 12 is about preparing our students for a future of their choosing and an opportunity to thrive. And that is a common goal I think we share, as I saw in your strategic plan. In Adams 12, we strive for every student to be healthy, safe, supported, engaged, and challenged. The proposed Nutrition Services Center is critical to achieve this. It is the engine that will allow us to store, prepare, and deliver chef-inspired scratch meals to more than 29,000 students across 47 schools directly supporting their academic success. As a dietician by trade and with 15 years experience leading nutrition teams in the education environment, I know one thing to be true. A hungry student cannot learn. And the opportunity we have in front of us is a unique opportunity. There are not a lot of school districts across the country in the state of Colorado that are building a facility such as ours to partner with resilient infrastructure and allow our system and our communities to incorporate farm to table with our local farmers, producers and distributors that reside right here in Adams County and beyond in Colorado. It's a unique opportunity to meet the needs of our students in a new way with healthy school meals for all in Colorado. We do recognize that the city planning department has raised questions that you just heard regarding our development plan, but in accordance with Colorado law as a school district, we have worked diligently to modify our plan in so far as we feel is feasible. We've approached this process with the spirit of partnership. We've made accommodations and compromise, respected the city's guidelines. all while trying to remain fiscally responsible to voters. As you know, as a district, we don't have unlimited funds for this project or others. It is our voters who have given us the ability to bring this project to life. So not approving our exceptions tonight would result in us not being good stewards of our taxpayer dollars. It would pose a significant barrier to us in delivering this project as promised to our community with our 2024 bond plan. Tonight you are not just approving a warehouse, a central kitchen, a nutrition services center, we are building a support system for our students' daily success. We respectfully ask that the commission listen tonight with open minds, open hearts, so together we can build and partner to build a thriving, connected community I know that we all want. And with that, we'll get into some of our technical reasons and I'll bring Ross Eddy up with MOA Architecture to talk about our site nuances.

Thank you, Molly. Next slide, please. Let me know if I need to raise this up a little bit. You can hear me, okay. All right, welcome, everybody, good evening. The first thing we wanted to do is just review the site with you. Not sure if everybody's familiar with the site up there. It's located between 120th and 128th Avenues, just south of the district's North Stadium, as Rev had pointed out. I-25 borders the site to the east. And Delaware Street is the closest street to the west on the other side of Tanglewood Creek. Delaware is not a main street in the city at this time. It's considered an access road and mostly serves the stadium, the middle school, and the high school, and then some apartment buildings to the south. You'll see four photos on the slides there with photo A. Yes, they're labeled. Photo A is taken from Delaware near the entry to the stadium where you'll see a large grove of trees that fill Tanglewood Creek and extend south into our site. Photo B shows the vegetation on the site as well as the grade change from the south parking lot up onto our site. Photo C was taken from the city walk path at the south edge of the property. And you'll notice in the distance, if you can see them, there are apartment buildings. And these apartment buildings are just over 150 yards away or just over one and a half football fields. And there is a significant amount of trees between them and the city property and to our property. Photo D is taken from southbound I-25 so you can get a view from the east. And that's what our site looks like. Next I'll bring up Eric with MOA to discuss the exterior design. Thank you.

Thanks Ross. Next slide please. So first we'd like to address the city standard for the exterior materials used required for a retail commercial building that states that metal siding is not to be used as a predominant material. While there are a few other food production facilities in Westminster, there isn't another facility quite like this one. However, it's being asked to be designed as one. This facility is something new. It's not open to the public, and it is a different function than any other retail or commercial business. Pre-engineered metal buildings are versatile, multifunctional, and adaptable. They offer exceptional durability and can adapt to heavy duty needs and uses. They have large spans that can accommodate the functionality of a food production facility like this and are widely used as an industry standard for a facility as this one. Our design includes articulated roof lines, canopies, variations through multiple textured panels, and masonry to create overall visual interest in the design. We've broken up the large mass, as you can see, with varying roof lines and heights and overhangs. The metal panels are used in high quality, complete insulated exterior system, and we've added masonry base to compromise with the city's standard. Next, I'll have John come up here to talk about our landscape.

Thanks Eric. Our exception number two landscape calculations are already covered in your drawing packet so I really want to focus on why reducing the number of trees and shrubs on this site for this building is so crucial and also how it aligns with the city of Westminster's sustainable priorities. First, of course, sustainability. The mostly prairie design of the site uses significantly less water than a landscape of trees and shrubs. Native short grass prairies are adapted to Colorado's climate. They're resilient, they support long-term water conservation, and they're specifically adapted to survive drought. In a future hotter, drier Colorado, saving water and surviving drought is everything. This is a native, sustainable, resilient Colorado landscape. The city of Westminster, too, recognizes the water saving and magic of native grass. The turf conversion outside City Hall and the turf to native grass transformation program are absolutely exemplary. Second, security. This facility is critical infrastructure to the school district. The entire perimeter of the secure operational facility is monitored by cameras 24 seven and with fencing protects the site and building from vandalism without and protects the food supply within. But trees obstruct camera views. Reducing tree density and strategic placement helps preserve clear camera sight lines and strengthen site security. Third, maintenance resources. The city has proposed that we plant 669 shrubs on our site. Our district simply does not have the ground staff to maintain a large number of trees and shrubs at this site. A core tenet of sustainability is only plant what you can maintain. And this landscape plan presented is a plan we can maintain beautifully. Fourth, irrigation costs. Our primary focus as a school district is student education, which requires us to stretch limited resources. We prioritize irrigating high traffic, high visibility, areas where community gathers, like school entrances and sports fields. At this site, planting fewer trees and shrubs, maintaining them well, and letting the native prairie thrive reduces overall water and maintenance demands. This allows us to redirect those critical resources to where they directly benefit our students and they directly benefit our communities. We believe our landscape approach balances the site's extremely unique operational and security needs with the city's goals for sustainability, natural resource conservation, and responsible development. Thank you. Ross is gonna talk about retaining wall design.

Hi there, I know that's something you're all excited to learn about tonight, retaining wall design. Next slide, please, Rob. A lot of thought and detail went into the position of the building on the site. There's approximately a 20 foot grade change from the southwest corner of the property to the northeast, sorry, the northwest corner to the southeast corner. at the high point. That's a lot of slope to accommodate in a site design. The building pad is approximately five feet above the stadium parking lot, which maxes out the allowable drive lane slope into the north per city standards. The west side has the required detention pond, the fire access road, and an outdoor staff and function space. The south side of the building accommodates the fire access road, the required drainage swale, and the start of some of the retaining walls. The east side is the secure service yard where the semi trucks come in to deliver the food. And as you can imagine, as you know, semi trucks take a considerable amount of space to turn around and back up to loading docks. And with the large amount of slope on the site, taller retaining walls were required to provide those clearances for the semis. So the specific position of the building on the site was intentionally placed to accommodate the required functions around each side of the building and moving the building in any of these directions really compromises those functions. Next slide, please. These images are enlargements of the previous plans so that you can see the impacts of the retaining walls on the truck maneuvering paths. The left plan is for a fire truck. The middle plan is for an arriving semi truck and the right plan is for a departing semi truck. The gray shaded areas represent the extent of the retaining walls if designed per the city guidelines and how far they would encroach into the service yard. These plans also show the space required for the fire truck to circulate around the south and the east of the site, as well as the semi trucks maneuvering to and from the loading docks. The pairs of lines from the vehicles represent the edges of the semis, and you can see that they need this whole space in the shaded area in order to operate and get to those loading docks. Next slide, please. This image shows the views towards the tiered east retaining walls from the south stadium parking lot. The service yard is enclosed by an eight-foot tall opaque security fence, which is required for the food safety, as John had mentioned. All of the retaining walls in question are internal to the secure service yard, and most of the walls are not visible to the public from outside of the yard. It is estimated that the visual height of the portion of the retaining wall seen above the fence is four feet or less. Next slide, please. This view is from southbound I-25 with the opaque security fence being on top of the retaining walls and with the walls located internal to the service yard, the walls are not visible from the east side or the south side of the property. Next slide, please. This is another view. We just wanted to investigate views from the surrounding public areas. This is a computer-generated view based on a photograph that was taken from Willowbrook Park, which is located just southwest of the property on the other side of Tanglewood Creek. You can see it's mostly obscured from view, the building is, from the trees that fill Tanglewood Creek, but there is an opening, and so we wanted to get this photo and show you what it would look like from the park. This is approximately 150 yards away as well. And we think it integrates well with the natural landscape with the color of the siding. In conclusion, this project represents a shared investment between Adams 12 and the city of Westminster in the wellbeing of our kids. We respectfully request your approval tonight so that we can move forward with building a healthier, more efficient future for our schools. Thank you and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. I have a quick question and then we'll open it up to everyone. I have a question about fire ratings. I want to know how masonry walls compared to these metal walls that you're proposing as far as fire rating. Can you give me that information?

Certainly. None of the exterior walls on the building are required to be fire rated. So in general, a fire rating for a masonry wall would need to be protected from both sides and so would a metal wall. In this scenario, if the walls had to be rated, you can... you can do that with the metal walls would probably likely need another layer or a layer of furring on the inside of the building. These metal panels are a complete insulated sandwich panel. So these go up on the exterior of the metal building and that's all that's needed. They don't need to fur out the inside of the walls or provide any additional insulation in the building.

Okay, so I don't know if you're familiar, but there were panels put on an apartment building in England many years ago that caught fire and they burned rapidly because the insulation trapped between two layers of metal made a chimney effect and the panels were actually a fire encouraging substrate. Would these panels, these metal panels you're proposing, have anything like that? Would the insulation be exposed to any open flame? No.

So the metal sandwich panel is completely enclosed. So the panel you're holding the insulation is not open to the next panel. And fire, if there was fire within one panel, it would not spread to the other. It would have to go through the metal enclosure first. Typically with those fires we see on high rises and residential like that is you have a layer of the exterior finish and then you have a layer of foam that is continuous all the way up the building. And so once that foam goes, it just spreads through the cavity. That's not how this is being constructed.

Okay, thank you.

You're welcome.

Any other questions? Commissioner Culling.

Yes, this is a question for staff. On the forefoot retaining walls, can you give us a little insight of what the rationale is from the city standpoint for forefoot is the maximum height? I know usually with those pedestrians in the area, kids will fall off. This doesn't seem like the place where you're going to have people falling off because it's kind of a fenced-in yard. So if you could kind of walk us through that a little bit, I'd appreciate it.

Yes, thank you. You're correct. One of the major issues is the safety component, kids or others climbing on top and falling off. The second is potential structural failure of the wall. One large wall creates a larger safety issue in terms of a structural failure than multiple smaller walls do. The four feet is also from the retail commercial design guidelines. It is the maximum that applies to all development that is required to meet those standards.

Thank you for that. So for the applicant, what is your response to safety from a structural standpoint? Are you doing something on these walls to make sure they're not going to fail?

Yes, thank you. So since these walls are within the secure yard, the only people within that secure yard are district staff. And the walls, there's not any landscaping on top of them. There's no reason to go up on top of the walls. So since it's a controlled environment with staff that would have training as far as please do this, please don't do this within the facility. The district is not as concerned with the safety of people climbing all over the walls and potentially falling off. There's no function that goes on on top of the walls.

You're not going to go up there and have a party or anything, huh? No, my question was more about what are you doing to design the walls in such a way that they won't fall? Because that was the other reason for the height.

Yes, yes. And I may lean on my construction partner over here. So the walls are maximum 10 feet for each one of them. They're designed with, I think, a helical pier foundation that goes down. It's a design build on this.

Yeah, they're looking at the bottom side of it.

Yeah, at least a 10-foot foundation, if not more, in order to structure these walls. Now, a lot of these walls that are even four feet, you don't need to have a deep foundation. You know, you might just have a couple feet of gravel and then you stack the wall on top because it's not very tall, but this does have an expensive foundation system that goes at least 10 feet into the ground below frost line.

Great, thank you very much.

You're welcome.

Commissioner Kinnear. I have some questions for Ms. Brandt. We appreciate the letter that you sent. I did have a chance to read that and I have a few questions about that. As I understand the district's position is that the authority of this commission is limited and ultimately the district is going to do what it wants to do, I guess. Is that a fair summary of the district's position?

I will say that we do agree with your first statement, that we do believe, due to the CRS 22-32-124, that we do believe the commission's jurisdiction beyond what is required in the CRS is limited. And we would not, we are interested in partnership, collaboration. We have had that spirit since day one. We have asked for a collaboration. We have provided voluntary collaboration and alternative ideas. We have built a masonry border around our metal building to comply to the extent feasible for our district with our limited resources due to it being bond funded and having a stewardship of dollars to our taxpayers. So what it would look like if worst case scenario happened this evening, I'm not certain, but I do know we are here to partner. with our limited resources needing to be brought to the table because that is really, unfortunately, the reality of where we are and why it would be an easy... If we had all the resources in the world and all the time in the world, this would be an easy... Yes, let's comply, comply. But unfortunately we are here because the three exceptions, the three landscaping, the metal building and the retaining wall are not feasible either in operation of this nuanced building or because we cannot restart our design, keep our design schedule, our promises to voters and fund a full masonry building.

So the key under the statutory provision you cite is feasibility under subsection one. Yep. And you address feasibility with respect to the retaining walls and the problems with vehicles being able to turn. You kind of conclusory address that in the landscape design. Don't really describe why that would not be feasible other than it would be more expensive. And I don't think feasibility is tied purely to expense. But you don't really address that at all feasibility with respect to the first thing about the design of the building and why it wouldn't be feasible to comply with the city's code.

I'm just looking at what we wrote to remind you myself.

It's the bottom of the second page.

Thank you. The city did provide us, we could emulate, match, and compliment the concrete masonry or the CMU block exterior of the stadium complex. We did believe that we did, because that is outside of our expense category, our timeline and redesign, that if I remember correctly, I'm not sure if John remembers, but the timeline of that compromise and that alternative was presented to us late in the design process. and it is not feasible to go back to the beginning of our design and change the exterior of the building will change the design inside the building.

Would you have access to the code before that issue arose in your communications with the city, is that right?

Yes, we did.

Okay.

That's all I have, thanks.

Thank you.

As long as we're on the subject, I'd like to have Mr. Graham weigh in on this as what you think the authority is of this commission regarding this applicant.

Chair I do have to be careful with respect to providing legal advice in public One thing I would like to point out is the feasibility part of the school districts argument Feasible insofar as feasible is a phrase that is used a few times in their letter that is found in Colorado revised statute section 22 32 124 subsection 1 subsection a It is only found in that subsection a and it's only found once and it's referring to how the school district is obligated to reach out to the planning commission of the area in which the school site or the school buildings will be located. And I'll just read a tiny bit. In order that the proposed site shall conform to the adopted plan of the community insofar as feasible. In the case of Westminster, the adopted plan would be the comprehensive plan. So that is the only language in this statutory section that addresses feasibility.

And you believe that that then would only apply to the comprehensive plan and not to city codes and architectural design requirements?

Generally, yes. However, I would state that the rest of that statute, the rest of that section 124, addresses building codes and fire codes. And the city has no authority over building codes, fire codes, or the inspection thereof, or at least the conformance with that, with those codes.

Okay. It sounds like... We're getting two different recommendations here. One is saying that we do have authority as long as it's not in reference to the comprehensive plan, but we don't have authority over certain codes. Am I misunderstanding or is that correct? I would agree that's correct. Do we need to call an executive session here to discuss this, whether we have authority?

I don't believe that would be necessary, Chair. And in addition, we would need to cite the specific provisions of the statutes that allow us to go into executive session and the purpose for that. Okay.

um well then let me ask for one little bit more clarification and if you can't answer this directly i understand but do you believe we have authority over this odp to the extent that an odp is required

I would agree we do have authority. There are a number of issues or items that are identified in ODPs. It could be landscaping, it could be drainage. As you know, the city is the holder of the MS4 permit. So for issues like drainage and sometimes landscaping falls into that category as far as how drainage works, there are reasons why the city would have authority over anybody who's moving dirt, doing plantings, that kind of thing.

Okay, thank you. I'm going to proceed as if the Planning Commission has the authority to make this decision. And with that in mind, is there anyone else who has more questions for staff or the applicant? Doesn't look like it, okay. So at this time I would like to open the public testimony portion of the hearing. Do we have a list, or at first I should ask, do we have any emails or voicemails

The letter is the public comment that we received and that was included in the public comment addendum or packet addendum that went out this afternoon.

Great, thank you.

I do have two speakers on the list. Okay. I'll call the first speaker up, Aaron Contreras, if you'd like to come up. And the microphone's turned on for you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the Planning Commission.

Please state your name, sir.

My name is Aaron Contreras. I'm a representative with the Carpenters Union, representing over 2,000 members with Local 555 here in Colorado. I'm here to speak in support of a construction transparency ordinance that ensures our community is fully informed. not just about what is being built, but about who is building it and how those projects benefit our residents. Transparency builds trust. When people can easily access clear information about construction timelines, impacts, and progress, it reduces confusion and frustration. But just as important, transparency should extend to the workforce Residents deserve to know whether these projects are creating real opportunities through registered apprenticeship and local hiring. This ordinance would also help reduce conflict and delays. Too often, a lack of communication leads to complaints or opposition that could have been avoided. By proactively sharing information, including apprenticeship participation, we create a smoother process for everyone involved. Accountability is another key benefit. Public reporting tools can track not only project milestones, but also whether developers are meeting apprenticeship goals. That ensures these projects deliver on their promise to train the next generation of skilled workers. We also must recognize the day-to-day impact of construction. Noise, traffic, and disruption are real concerns. But when residents see that these projects are investing in local careers and economic growth, they are more likely to view them as a net positive. Finally, this ordinance is about the future. By embedding apprenticeship transparency into our policies, we're strengthening our local workforce pipeline, supporting good paying careers, and ensuring that the benefits of development stay right here in our community. Thank you guys very much for your time. Appreciate you.

I have a quick question for you. Yes, sir. Are you therefore supporting this project or against it?

I'm neither supporting or against this project. What I'm here to do, and I do apologize for it, I was here to speak on the Kaiser facility. But being that I'm already here, I didn't want to lose the trip. But not here for nor against the project.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

All right, do we have anyone else?

Yes, I have Pat LaPlante.

Okay, that concludes the number.

Okay, that's all the people to sign up. Is there anyone else who wishes to speak? Okay, seeing none the public testimony portion of the hearing is hereby closed and I will invite commissioners to express their current take on this project or ask questions of staff or the applicant. Okay.

Oh, Commissioner Dunn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This question is for Mr. Graham. Greg, I'm just wondering who is the final arbiter of this? Proceeding I mean who is the final arbiter of the permit being? Issued To to the applicant Well that depends

on how far it goes. I would look to Mr. Casa as far as what the next steps would be in this process, specifically if the applicant were to be denied. Mr. Casa has, thankfully, an encyclopedic knowledge of our municipal code.

Thanks, Mr. Graham. So if this Planning Commission denies the ODP, the school district does have the ability to appeal that. They would appeal to city council. Alternatively, as far as your question on who would issue a permit, so the city does not have the jurisdiction over the building permit. The building permit itself is issued through the division of fire safety. It's a state agency that controls the school district construction. Specifically, the city has the authority over the land disturbance permit. And again, that goes back towards our authority with the stormwater permit and stormwater management. And so effectively for us to issue a land disturbance permit, they have to have an official development plan approved. That's kind of how our code reads is that you get your ODP approved, then you can do it. And the point of our ODP process is to kind of coordinate the whole big picture of any development and make sure that we're aligning streets, we're making sure our utility system works, the fire hydrants will work, the fire department can access this facility, as well as instituting things like our retail commercial design guidelines.

Thank you. Okay, it doesn't look like there's a lot of questions. Can we get a motion on this application? A motion and a second, please. I need someone brave.

Commissioner Kinnear. Yeah, thanks. While I understand the issue with the retaining wall and having traffic move around the building and some understanding of the issue relating to maintaining landscaping and the water requirements, I'm not convinced that the first issue that was raised really has has been adequately explained as a feasibility problem and so absent working with staff further on that I don't believe I can support the ODP application and so I move the Planning Commission deny the official development plan for Mountain Range High School Nutrition Center. This recommendation is based on the finding that the proposed official development plan does not comply with the criteria in section 11-5-15 of the Westminster Municipal Code.

Do we have a second? Commissioner Dunn. I will second that. Thank you. So we have a motion before us. Do we have any discussion on this? Vice Chair Carpenter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will not be supporting this motion to deny. These are design guidelines for a reason. I think the exceptions that the applicant made are... are relevant to this, especially with the truck turning and even with the landscaping. So I think I would be in support of supporting them through even though we may not have the final say on the building itself. That sounds like from what Mr. Graham has said. But I will not be in support of the motion to deny.

Thank you. Commissioner Pegg. I'm also against the motion to deny. In particular, the comp plan asks us, hang on, I gotta scroll back up, develop a built environment that is integrated with open spaces and allows for the preservation of natural areas and creek corridors. um and i think that given that there are already native plants on this site and that the intention is to uh plant more native plants maybe get rid of some of the weeds i'm not exactly sure but in any case to preserve that natural landscaping i think is actually more in line with the intent of the comp plan than non-native trees i think this also supports i think Building this also supports a goal, HWS3, which is support access to healthy and culturally relevant food and other support services. This is about healthy food for kids, so it's hard for me to say no to the exceptions they're asking for.

Any other discussion? Chair Boschert, may I? Please. I just want to make sure that the commission understands we're not voting on anything related to the comp plan. And the comp plan itself, with all due respect, Commissioner Pegg, the comp plan itself does not provide the criteria for making this decision. That's in the agenda memo that planning staff have provided you.

Thank you for that. I would make a quick comment that some of the exceptions here I could support. The landscape design, minimizing the use of water. I like that. The exterior design, getting away from brick and masonry. I think maybe the city could work on that a little more with the applicant. But the retaining wall, I think, is an engineering issue. And I'm not sure that a wall of that size is as safe as the applicant claims. But I'm not an engineer in that area, so I can't say for sure. So I have mixed feelings about this. Vice Chair Carpenter.

Sure, I just want to say, Chair Boschert, that as a civil engineer, we deal with large retaining walls all the time. They're always designed and stamped by a structural engineer and they are beefed up to prevent overtopping or other types of wall failures. So they can be made safe and they can be built properly. Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Kinnear. As I mentioned when I made the motion, I don't have a big concern with the retaining wall or the landscape design as those both had more justification. My concern was with the first exception that was addressed in the letter regarding the exterior of the building to meet our standards, and I don't see any reason why that can't be done. to some extent anyway, working more with staff. And so that's kind of a response that I don't have a problem with saving water or or having a retaining wall that's different under the circumstances where they have truck mobility issues either. But you have neighbors, Westminster neighbors who live around here who are gonna be looking at this building and it has to be incorporated and there's a reason why the standard exists to accommodate that. So that's all I have.

Great, thank you. Any other discussion or questions? If there is no further discussion, I will ask the secretary for a roll call vote.

Commissioner Kinnear?

Yes.

Commissioner Dunn?

Yes.

Chair Boschert?

Yes.

Vice Chair Carpenter?

No.

Commissioner Young?

Yes.

Commissioner Pegg?

No.

Commissioner Colling? Yes.

Okay, the motion passes. I believe that was five to two. So, thank you for your presentation and your time. We have made this decision and I believe the city council can get involved. Staff, can you tell us what they would do if they wanted to appeal this?

Yes, so within 10 days of the decision They would send a letter to the city manager requesting an appeal of the Planning Commission decision to City Council.

Okay. Thank you That agenda item is now resolved do we have any old business Do we have any miscellaneous business Planning Aid Garcia, can you tell us when our next meeting will be?

Yes, it'll be August 11th.

August 11th, thank you. All right, thank you, staff, for a great presentation. This meeting is hereby adjourned at 7.52 p.m.

Thank you. Thank you.